America just won

[tlynn78]

I think to Beebs' point, there are bad actors across the spectrum. Your rather extreme position is that the Republican party should dry up and blow away because of your wild imagining. I don't recall you calling for the abolishing if the Dem party following any of the left-leaning lunacies. You and the doc appear to whip up fantasies in your head, and then hold the right responsible for your imagining. It’s weird.

As usual, you miss my point, but given your demonstrated limitations I expect nothing more from you.

The same Republicans who are vocally defending a convicted felon (and one who provoked an insurrection) have said NOTHING about the threats against the jurors. I'm pretty sure you were among the people rather insistent that elected Democrats condemn the violence that occurred in the wake of the George Floyd murder (which many of them did, by the way). But you're secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) hoping that future jurors who sit in judgment over Donny will be intimidated so you're just fine with the treatment starting to be doled out to the New York jurors.

You're an elected Republican official. Will you publicly condemn the attempts to doxx, harass, and threaten the New York jurors with a fervor equal to that you've directed against the verdict they duly reached? I look forward to your press release to that effect. --Bob

I'm not sure the Bored counts as particularly public, but I have zero problem condemning it. It shouldn't happen to anyone. Press releases aren't readily available when the candidate is unopposed, so you'll just have to dream.

[tlynn78]

I think to Beebs' point, there are bad actors across the spectrum. Your rather extreme position is that the Republican party should dry up and blow away because of your wild imagining. I don't recall you calling for the abolishing if the Dem party following any of the left-leaning lunacies. You and the doc appear to whip up fantasies in your head, and then hold the right responsible for your imagining. It’s weird.

As usual, you miss my point, but given your demonstrated limitations I expect nothing more from you.

The same Republicans who are vocally defending a convicted felon (and one who provoked an insurrection) have said NOTHING about the threats against the jurors. I'm pretty sure you were among the people rather insistent that elected Democrats condemn the violence that occurred in the wake of the George Floyd murder (which many of them did, by the way). But you're secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) hoping that future jurors who sit in judgment over Donny will be intimidated so you're just fine with the treatment starting to be doled out to the New York jurors.

You're an elected Republican official. Will you publicly condemn the attempts to doxx, harass, and threaten the New York jurors with a fervor equal to that you've directed against the verdict they duly reached? I look forward to your press release to that effect. --Bob

I'm not sure the Bored counts as particularly public, but I have zero problem condemning it. It shouldn't happen to anyone. Press releases aren't readily available when the candidate is unopposed, so you'll just have to dream.

Oh, and I don't believe I've displayed a great deal of fervor over the verdict. I don't believe it will withstand appeal, so there's not much sense in being worked up over it, especially at this rather early point. I'll leave the fervor, hysteria, whatever to y'all on the left. You've had so much practice.

[silverscreenselect]

I don't believe it will withstand appeal, so there's not much sense in being worked up over it, especially at this rather early point.

This has been the common response from Trump supporters about the verdict. Of course, because of the nature of the appeals process, there won't be a decision in this case until after the election. (New York has a two-level appeals process, with an intermediate court hearing it first before the state's high court, which is called the Court of Appeals.) No one I've heard has stated any specific reason the verdict should be overturned other than generalized complaints about the judge and the system being "rigged." Those sorts of complaints don't go very far with an appellate court. If anything, Judge Merchan seems to have gone out of his way to be fair to the defense. Several times, he cut off testimony by prosecution witnesses that the defense themselves didn't object to.

One thing an appellate court will not do is conduct its own review of the evidence to see if it reaches the same verdict as the actual jury. Instead, they will ask if a reasonable jury could have found the facts the same way the actual jury did. They won't say the jury shouldn't have believed Michael Cohen because he's a known liar. Instead, they respect the jury's first-hand opportunity to evaluate Cohen's testimony to see how believable it was. Very few jury verdicts are overturned because of the facts. Instead, the defense will have to point out specific errors of law that the judge made that might have resulted in the jury verdict. Were any of the jury instructions incorrect? Did he fail to give instructions he should have? Did he allow or exclude evidence on objection that might have made a difference? Unless the defense can point out some reversible error, then the jury verdict will be affirmed.

[flockofseagulls104]

I don't believe it will withstand appeal, so there's not much sense in being worked up over it, especially at this rather early point.

This has been the common response from Trump supporters about the verdict. Of course, because of the nature of the appeals process, there won't be a decision in this case until after the election. (New York has a two-level appeals process, with an intermediate court hearing it first before the state's high court, which is called the Court of Appeals.) No one I've heard has stated any specific reason the verdict should be overturned other than generalized complaints about the judge and the system being "rigged." Those sorts of complaints don't go very far with an appellate court. If anything, Judge Merchan seems to have gone out of his way to be fair to the defense. Several times, he cut off testimony by prosecution witnesses that the defense themselves didn't object to.

One thing an appellate court will not do is conduct its own review of the evidence to see if it reaches the same verdict as the actual jury. Instead, they will ask if a reasonable jury could have found the facts the same way the actual jury did. They won't say the jury shouldn't have believed Michael Cohen because he's a known liar. Instead, they respect the jury's first-hand opportunity to evaluate Cohen's testimony to see how believable it was. Very few jury verdicts are overturned because of the facts. Instead, the defense will have to point out specific errors of law that the judge made that might have resulted in the jury verdict. Were any of the jury instructions incorrect? Did he fail to give instructions he should have? Did he allow or exclude evidence on objection that might have made a difference? Unless the defense can point out some reversible error, then the jury verdict will be affirmed.

Give it a break, trollboy.

You KNOW this was a sham trial, but your TDS is stopping you from any rational thought, if you had any capability to do that regardless.

Just ONE of the myriad grounds for appeal:

"Judge" Merchan has many conflicts of interest

Should have recused himself
*Donated to Act Blue "Stop the Republicans"
*Donated to Biden for President
*Daughter Loren is a democrat campaign consultant and has made millions of dollars based on this trial
*Loren Merchan worked for Kamala Harris and Adam Schiff

It is also highly suspicious that "Judge" Merchan got 'randomly' appointed to over see 3 separate cases involving Trump.

Add to that many biased rulings in the trial arbitrarily not allowing defense witnesses to testify, very questionable jury instructions and many other things I won't list.

Your claim that no reason has been stated that the verdict should be overturned is pure bull, and you know it. Your TDS won't allow you to hear them.

[silverscreenselect]

"Judge" Merchan has many conflicts of interest

Should have recused himself
*Donated to Act Blue "Stop the Republicans"
*Donated to Biden for President
*Daughter Loren is a democrat campaign consultant and has made millions of dollars based on this trial
*Loren Merchan worked for Kamala Harris and Adam Schiff

From Reuters 5/17/24:

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has dismissed an ethics complaint against Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush money criminal case against former U.S. President Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the judge said. The complaint stemmed from donations in 2020 which, according to the Federal Election Commission, were for $35 to the Democratic group ActBlue that included $15 earmarked for Biden for President and $10 each to Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans. Reuters could not determine who made the complaint.

In its 2024 annual report, the Commission on Judicial Conduct said contributions violate the rules on prohibited political activity. The report said several dozen judges had apparently made prohibited contributions in the last few years, mostly to candidates for federal office. It said most were modest, typically under $100 and sometimes as low as $5 or $10. The commission's investigation and its outcome have not been previously reported. A commission administrator declined to comment. The commission's proceedings are confidential unless it decides on public censure or other discipline or the judge makes them public. Last year, Merchan denied Trump's first motion to get him to step aside, after a separate Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics said the modest, more than two-year-old contributions could not create an impression of bias or favoritism.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/compla ... 024-05-17/

Old news and the Ethics Commission has already ruled on it. The only sham in this trial was the defendant.

[flockofseagulls104]

"Judge" Merchan has many conflicts of interest

Should have recused himself
*Donated to Act Blue "Stop the Republicans"
*Donated to Biden for President
*Daughter Loren is a democrat campaign consultant and has made millions of dollars based on this trial
*Loren Merchan worked for Kamala Harris and Adam Schiff

From Reuters 5/17/24:

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has dismissed an ethics complaint against Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush money criminal case against former U.S. President Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the judge said. The complaint stemmed from donations in 2020 which, according to the Federal Election Commission, were for $35 to the Democratic group ActBlue that included $15 earmarked for Biden for President and $10 each to Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans. Reuters could not determine who made the complaint.

In its 2024 annual report, the Commission on Judicial Conduct said contributions violate the rules on prohibited political activity. The report said several dozen judges had apparently made prohibited contributions in the last few years, mostly to candidates for federal office. It said most were modest, typically under $100 and sometimes as low as $5 or $10. The commission's investigation and its outcome have not been previously reported. A commission administrator declined to comment. The commission's proceedings are confidential unless it decides on public censure or other discipline or the judge makes them public. Last year, Merchan denied Trump's first motion to get him to step aside, after a separate Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics said the modest, more than two-year-old contributions could not create an impression of bias or favoritism.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/compla ... 024-05-17/

Old news and the Ethics Commission has already ruled on it. The only sham in this trial was the defendant.

I am a judge, and my appointment as a judge is to represent the people's interest. I am 'randomly' selected to oversee this case of major implications to our country. I am a democrat and donate to democrat causes. I have a daughter who has worked for high profile democratic officials, and is a campaign consultant for many democrat candidates. Who will no doubt benefit financially from this case, especially if the result goes a specific way.

If I had any sense of ethics, or concern for my further reputation, I would have declined this case. I would have determined there are many other judges who could take this case without having the perception of bias that may result from my situation and possibly taint the results of the trial either way.

The only rational reason I would remain on the case is I WANT THE CASE.

Trollboy, as usual, you address a minor point and find something on the internet that supports what you have already determined your answer is without giving it one second of independent thought. You have yet to show in all the years I have been on this bored that you are capable of independent thought. It is completely obvious to anyone who bothers to explore the facts beyond the shallowness that's reported in your echo chamber that this 'judge' was beyond highly conflicted, and never should have presided over a case of this importance. But everything about this case, from the fact that it was brought in the first place, after being dismissed by all those who had actual jurisdiction over the alleged wrongdoing, and the 'judge's' actions during the case, indicate it was manufactured for the express purpose of damaging one particular person. And, if you have any critical thinking ability, you will determine it was not the only case of this category. But you have never shown that ability in any post you have ever made, either.

[silverscreenselect]

Trollboy, as usual, you address a minor point and find something on the internet that supports what you have already determined your answer is without giving it one second of independent thought.

Well, I just did what I should have done in the first place, and that is to research New York law on recusal of judges. New York has a judicial rule that requires trial judges to recuse themselves in a limited set of circumstances, namely that the judge is related to a party or attorney for a party. Otherwise, recusal is pretty much at the discretion of the trial judge. The governing case law says: "In the absence of a violation of express statutory provisions, bias or prejudice or unworthy motive on the part of a Judge, unconnected with an interest in the controversy, will not be a cause for disqualification, unless shown to affect the result." By "interest in the controversy," they mean that the judge has a direct financial interest in the case. Another case similarly states: "We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it 'must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.'"So again, they will have to find some rulings that the judge made that could be attributed to prejudice on his part. So it's very hard for an appellate court in New York to reverse a conviction for failure of the trial judge to recuse himself. Considering that Judge Merchan got an Ethics Board ruling in his case beforehand, an appeal on this ground is probably doomed to fail.

Flock, it's hard to say that a single $35 donation to a Democratic organization three years before this case began makes the judge highly conflicted when numerous other New York judges have made similar de minimis political contributions. And every single criminal case is brought for the purpose of "damaging" one person, the defendant in that case.

[flockofseagulls104]

Trollboy, as usual, you address a minor point and find something on the internet that supports what you have already determined your answer is without giving it one second of independent thought.

Well, I just did what I should have done in the first place, and that is to research New York law on recusal of judges. New York has a judicial rule that requires trial judges to recuse themselves in a limited set of circumstances, namely that the judge is related to a party or attorney for a party. Otherwise, recusal is pretty much at the discretion of the trial judge. The governing case law says: "In the absence of a violation of express statutory provisions, bias or prejudice or unworthy motive on the part of a Judge, unconnected with an interest in the controversy, will not be a cause for disqualification, unless shown to affect the result." By "interest in the controversy," they mean that the judge has a direct financial interest in the case. Another case similarly states: "We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it 'must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.'"So again, they will have to find some rulings that the judge made that could be attributed to prejudice on his part. So it's very hard for an appellate court in New York to reverse a conviction for failure of the trial judge to recuse himself. Considering that Judge Merchan got an Ethics Board ruling in his case beforehand, an appeal on this ground is probably doomed to fail.

Flock, it's hard to say that a single $35 donation to a Democratic organization three years before this case began makes the judge highly conflicted when numerous other New York judges have made similar de minimis political contributions. And every single criminal case is brought for the purpose of "damaging" one person, the defendant in that case.

You are still focusing on one minor part that you can put together a dubious argument for. It is obvious to any thinking (disqualifies you) and informed (you are disqualified again) that this 'judge' should never have presided over this case. It is worthless to listen to your irrelevant rantings.

BTW. Ed Lindsey of the GA State Election Board sat through almost an hour and a half of public comments at the last SEB meeting of people asking, begging and demanding that he resign. He just sat there and ended up being responsible for no accountability actions taken against the SOS or Fulton County even though the investigation showed 140 election law violations and it was established beyond doubt that no one can verify who actually won the 2020 Presidential election in Georgia. But, like Merchan, he WANTED to be there. He wanted to be there to fulfill a purpose. He, like Merchan, excused his obvious conflicts of interest because some stupid commission or other came up with some loophole that said it was 'alright' for him to continue. It was only when the State Convention was going to vote on a resolution banning lobbyists from being on the State Board that he finally resigned.

[mrkelley23]

"Judge" Merchan has many conflicts of interest

Should have recused himself
*Donated to Act Blue "Stop the Republicans"
*Donated to Biden for President
*Daughter Loren is a democrat campaign consultant and has made millions of dollars based on this trial
*Loren Merchan worked for Kamala Harris and Adam Schiff

From Reuters 5/17/24:

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has dismissed an ethics complaint against Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush money criminal case against former U.S. President Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the judge said. The complaint stemmed from donations in 2020 which, according to the Federal Election Commission, were for $35 to the Democratic group ActBlue that included $15 earmarked for Biden for President and $10 each to Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans. Reuters could not determine who made the complaint.

In its 2024 annual report, the Commission on Judicial Conduct said contributions violate the rules on prohibited political activity. The report said several dozen judges had apparently made prohibited contributions in the last few years, mostly to candidates for federal office. It said most were modest, typically under $100 and sometimes as low as $5 or $10. The commission's investigation and its outcome have not been previously reported. A commission administrator declined to comment. The commission's proceedings are confidential unless it decides on public censure or other discipline or the judge makes them public. Last year, Merchan denied Trump's first motion to get him to step aside, after a separate Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics said the modest, more than two-year-old contributions could not create an impression of bias or favoritism.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/compla ... 024-05-17/

Old news and the Ethics Commission has already ruled on it. The only sham in this trial was the defendant.

I am a judge, and my appointment as a judge is to represent the people's interest. I am 'randomly' selected to oversee this case of major implications to our country. I am a democrat and donate to democrat causes. I have a daughter who has worked for high profile democratic officials, and is a campaign consultant for many democrat candidates. Who will no doubt benefit financially from this case, especially if the result goes a specific way.

If I had any sense of ethics, or concern for my further reputation, I would have declined this case. I would have determined there are many other judges who could take this case without having the perception of bias that may result from my situation and possibly taint the results of the trial either way.

The only rational reason I would remain on the case is I WANT THE CASE.

Trollboy, as usual, you address a minor point and find something on the internet that supports what you have already determined your answer is without giving it one second of independent thought. You have yet to show in all the years I have been on this bored that you are capable of independent thought. It is completely obvious to anyone who bothers to explore the facts beyond the shallowness that's reported in your echo chamber that this 'judge' was beyond highly conflicted, and never should have presided over a case of this importance. But everything about this case, from the fact that it was brought in the first place, after being dismissed by all those who had actual jurisdiction over the alleged wrongdoing, and the 'judge's' actions during the case, indicate it was manufactured for the express purpose of damaging one particular person. And, if you have any critical thinking ability, you will determine it was not the only case of this category. But you have never shown that ability in any post you have ever made, either.

You just did a very good job of describing why Judge Cannon should recuse herself, but not Judge Merchan.

[flockofseagulls104]

For once, trollboy, sit down and read something that you don't want to read. Read every word. Ponder what you just read, if that is one of the things you can do.

Only then comment on it. You can do an ad hominem attack on me, or on Gorka, or on anybody else if you want. That is your right, but it will just continue to show how shallow and closed-minded you are.

Maybe for once, you can go point by point, without resorting to some bought and paid for talking shithead on the internet, and discuss in reality what is being said with the realization that half, probably more than half, of the people in this country agree with the overall viewpoint expressed in that article. And you can dismiss them if you want, but they are not going to go away because you don't like their perspective or call them nasty names.
-------------
The effort to steal the upcoming election will be a lot more difficult this time. But not impossible. But if 81 million votes (my ass) was difficult to explain for a guy who did no campaigning and somehow got more votes than Obama ever did, the total of votes he will have to get this time may have to exceed the number of registered voters in a lot more counties than he did last time. And it will not go unnoticed until it is too late, like it did last time. And we will have thousands more people looking at every aspect of this election this time. Even the importing and registering of illegal aliens might not do it for you. And your continuing attempt at lawfare will not work. It will just move more people away from your side. More and more people are coming to see the lies you weave. Keep crying WOLF.

When Trump is elected, it will not be 'retribution'. It will be the cleaning house of all the corruption that your party has used to gain control of the bureaucracy. The 'democracy' (actual Constitutional Republic) will not end. It will be restored. He will not be a dictator (except for the first day, when he will cancel all the Unconstitutional Executive Orders made by biden's handlers). He will not "Never Leave" (as Bobby DeNiro thinks). He has one term to fix as much as he can. He fixed a lot of it in his first term, only to have biden's handlers unfix it. Trump's supporters have respect for the laws, traditions and Constitution of this country. Unlike the leftists that guide and manipulate your party. We will not let him do anything that goes against our values. Then we will choose the candidate who will continue to reflect and carry out our values.

That is what the people you hate so much believe. Wake up and smell the coffee, trollboy. Gloat all you want. You have won nothing.

[silverscreenselect]

For once, trollboy, sit down and read something that you don't want to read. Read every word. Ponder what you just read, if that is one of the things you can do. Only then comment on it. You can do an ad hominem attack on me, or on Gorka, or on anybody else if you want. That is your right, but it will just continue to show how shallow and closed-minded you are.

Here's what Sebastian Gorka said, minus the grandstanding about how wonderful Trump is:

From Judge Merchan reversing the order of final arguments before the jury, so the prosecution went last and could not be rebutted by the defense, to the outrageous and unprecedented instructions that all 12 of the jury need not agree on the guilt of the defendant, the fix was in from the moment the Biden Administration’s No. 3 man at the DoJ magically appeared as a line prosecutor working for Alvin Bragg in New York. Add to that the judge illicitly donating to the Biden campaign and an anti-Trump PAC, and his daughter raising $93 million dollars off her father’s trial for the Democrats, this was a political operation not even thinly veiled as a judicial proceeding.

Responding point-by-point:

1) The prosecution goes last in every criminal case in New York. That's the law; it's not a special rule just for Trump.

2) The judge never said that the jury didn't all have to agree on Trump's guilt. He said that the prosecution had to prove that the fraudulent payments were in support of another crime and named three possible other crimes. He said that the jury did not all have to agree on which of those three crimes the fraud was connected with. Again, that's in accordance with longstanding New York case law in any similar prosecution.

3) One of the six assistant DAs on the case, Matthew Colangelo, worked in the New York Attorney General's office before going to work at the Biden justice department before going to Alvin Bragg's office where he primarily works on prosecuting housing fraud-related crimes. Lots of prosecuting attorneys move from one office to another during their careers.

4) Before taking this case, Merchan reported his possible conflicts of interest, including his daughter's activities to the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. They gave him the go-ahead to take the case. And as I said in my earlier post, it's very difficult to overturn a conviction in New York for a judge's failure to recuse himself.

And here's the inside poop on your buddy Sebastian Gorka from an international human rights organization.

Credible reports continue to suggest that Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant and senior counter-terrorism advisor to President Trump, has over the course of his career maintained ties to, and voiced opinions supportive of, antisemitic Hungarian extremist groups and political parties. He has written opinion pieces for news outlets widely known for their antisemitic views. Gorka and his supporters have denied all allegations tying him to these groups. Instead, they have sought to discredit media reports that have exposed Gorka’s statements and actions,

https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/se ... legations/

[flockofseagulls104]

Your response is just as expected, along with a swipe from the usual suspects at Gorka.

The main thing is that the party that has the power is abusing its power in an unprecedented degree to remove its opposition. Just like they do in dictatorships and communist countries.

And this particular case is based on some bookkeeper classifying a payment to a lawyer as a 'legal expense'. And, the main testimony as reported to us outside the courtroom, was by a professional sex worker who denied multiple times that the event in question ever took place and who broke her NDA to boot, and a serial convicted liar and perjurer on topics that had nothing to do with bookkeeping, federal law or taxes.

As Gorka correctly pointed out, your party, in its zeal to prevent Trump from being elected, has made it more likely that he will get elected and shattered the credibility of the justice system in this country. Congratulations.

BTW, I have never heard this: What should the bookkeeper have classified the payment as?

Also, again, I haven't seen this asked: If the underlying crime was to avoid taxes, what would the taxes be on the payments in question? Do you think that was anything but chump change to Trump? If the underlying crime was to hide a campaign expense or something, don't you think the feds would have done something? Why, for that amount of money, would they try and hide it? Why in God's name would they try to deliberately 'falsify business records' for either of these reasons? It's like committing a murder to cover up a $10 shoplifting. Again, it's a made-up crime that no one that was not named Trump would have been prosecuted for.

[silverscreenselect]

And this particular case is based on some bookkeeper classifying a payment to a lawyer as a 'legal expense'. Again, it's a made-up crime that no one that was not named Trump would have been prosecuted for.

You're right that no one other than Trump would have been prosecuted because no other former Presidents have engaged in this type of fraud before.

The evidence from people in the Trump organization was that Trump micromanaged everything that went on in his organization. He knew what the payment to Cohen was for and was responsible for classifying it as a legal expense. The only "evidence" that this was a bookkeeping error was in statements made by Trump's attorneys during closing arguments.

[flockofseagulls104]

You're right that no one other than Trump would have been prosecuted because no other former Presidents have engaged in this type of fraud before.

Oh really? Now who's being naive, Kay?

No one in the world has been prosecuted for these specific made-up charges before. At the most, it should have been a misdemeanor, but was fabricated and constructed after the statute of limitations by the direction of the biden regime, out of jurisdiction, into felonies.

But, of course, you know that. They are doing exactly what they did to Gen Flynn, because they know that under a Trump administration, they will all be held accountable. Flynn knows where the skeletons are. That's why the main priority of the swamp, once Trump unexpectedly got elected, was to take out Flynn. Now they are doing everything they can think of to keep Trump out. The fucking law, the Constitution and the American people be damned. Because Trump now knows how Washington works and they are scared to death of him.

You like movies, trollboy. Watch Flynn. It explains everything.

[earendel]

From Reuters 5/17/24:



https://www.reuters.com/world/us/compla ... 024-05-17/

Old news and the Ethics Commission has already ruled on it. The only sham in this trial was the defendant.

I am a judge, and my appointment as a judge is to represent the people's interest. I am 'randomly' selected to oversee this case of major implications to our country. I am a democrat and donate to democrat causes. I have a daughter who has worked for high profile democratic officials, and is a campaign consultant for many democrat candidates. Who will no doubt benefit financially from this case, especially if the result goes a specific way.

If I had any sense of ethics, or concern for my further reputation, I would have declined this case. I would have determined there are many other judges who could take this case without having the perception of bias that may result from my situation and possibly taint the results of the trial either way.

The only rational reason I would remain on the case is I WANT THE CASE.

Trollboy, as usual, you address a minor point and find something on the internet that supports what you have already determined your answer is without giving it one second of independent thought. You have yet to show in all the years I have been on this bored that you are capable of independent thought. It is completely obvious to anyone who bothers to explore the facts beyond the shallowness that's reported in your echo chamber that this 'judge' was beyond highly conflicted, and never should have presided over a case of this importance. But everything about this case, from the fact that it was brought in the first place, after being dismissed by all those who had actual jurisdiction over the alleged wrongdoing, and the 'judge's' actions during the case, indicate it was manufactured for the express purpose of damaging one particular person. And, if you have any critical thinking ability, you will determine it was not the only case of this category. But you have never shown that ability in any post you have ever made, either.

You just did a very good job of describing why Judge Cannon should recuse herself, but not Judge Merchan.

And let's not forget Alito and Thomas.

[Weyoun]

If former general Flynn Knows about the skeletons, and he’s already been to jail, then why isn’t he release any information? What does he have to lose at this point?

This is much like all this stuff about the election being stolen will eventually come out, but never does.

[Weyoun]

Some very good points being raised. I wonder if flock is unhappy that Justice Thomas gets all these expensive trips paid for by rich donors. Isn’t that pretty swampy?

[flockofseagulls104]

If former general Flynn Knows about the skeletons, and he’s already been to jail, then why isn’t he release any information? What does he have to lose at this point?

This is much like all this stuff about the election being stolen will eventually come out, but never does.

Watch Flynn. He has. He was one of the first and most effective victims of swamp lawfare. We need to get him back into a position where he can do something about it. And the intelligence community has and will do everything from Sunday to prevent him.

As for Clarence Thomas. Yeah, it looks bad. That is Washington DC for you. But if the media would dig into anyone with as much fervor as they do their preferred targets, they would find mud just as deep. How did biden, pelosi, waters, you name them become multi-millionaires in public service? It's all got to be cleaned up, but in both directions, not just one.

We should all be on the same side, getting rid of ALL the corruption in our federal government. Voting for biden will only ensure it will continue unabated.