Levin: My hope is that there's at least one juror with the smarts, guts, and conscience, who cuts through the static, the collateral evidence, and the judge's misconduct, and says no to Merchan, no to Bragg, no to the Biden regime

X ^ | May 28, 2024 | Mark Levin

[kiryandil]

That was one pretzel post, there.

You're simply making excuses for an actual criminal, while trying to smear Trump in your usual back-handed NeverTrumping Democrat Party operative way.

[joesbucks]

I’m not back handed. I’m just not a sycophant. Just saying having the same facts and circumstances Levin would likely be expressing a different desired outcome depending on who the charges were made against.

[kiryandil]

Your "counterfactual conditional" insertion of unconvicted felon Hunter Biden into the discussion is only meant to change the subject from the phony trial of Trump by Fat Alvin and cartel stooge "Wetback Cur" Merchan, part of your NeverTrumping role here on Free Republic.

You're a Democrat Party operative, as many posters here know, joes cur.

[joesbucks]

I’m not going to change your mind nor you mine.

[kiryandil]

I’m not going to change your mind nor you mine.

I'm just going to keep exposing you as a Democrat Party operative on Free Republic.  

[Political Junkie Too]

If this were Hunter’s case, I think Levin’s thoughts would totally opposite.

Can you explain your thinking on why Levin's legal opinion would be situational?

Levin often (if not always) bases his legal opinions on his experience as the Chief of Staff of former Attorney General Ed Meese, his time as a law clerk for 5th circuit Court of Appeals Judge Will Garwood, and his work for his Landmark Legal Foundation.

What can you point to that suggests that Levin's opinions are partisan?

-PJ

[kiryandil]

   

[kiryandil]

Excellent post. :)

[joesbucks]

Well if I’m an operative, I’m not paid for it.

[LegendHasIt]

Ah! I see where I went wrong; It was Judge Engoron that said that he could do whatever he wants, and to heck with the Jury decisions, not Merchan. (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if Merchan believes the same.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unmasking-the-judge-in-trump-s-trial/ar-AA1i10WX

[joesbucks]

Do you believe he’d be providing the same cover for the Biden’s or the Clinton’s should all other elements of the cases were being applied against them?

[Jamestown1630]

Thanks. (gosh, that first photo looks like a mug shot...)

[jonrick46]

The Biden Regime is the new Marxist mob. I can imagine jurists threatening others with cement shoes and a trip to the George Washington Bridge.

[Political Junkie Too]

Deflecting?

You're the one who made the claim. Explain yourself first.

-PJ

[joesbucks]

I have. We all know partisan are fungible with their desire for legal outcomes. There are always kernels that can be used to create a narrative for both sides.

[Political Junkie Too]

"We all know" no such thing.

Where do you come off telling me what I "know?"

I think you generalize too much and then project those generalizations onto others in order to justify your own biases.

How's that for stating what I believe?

Should I say that "we all know" that's what you do, or should I just state my own belief that it's what you do?

-PJ

[kiryandil]

“We all know” that joesbucks is a Democrat Party operative and an apologist for the likes of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Clyburn and Jamie Ratskin.

[joesbucks]

The game is not providing evidence, the game is providing innuendo. Put them on the defensive. We don't have to prove anything to do that, we just have to put the question out there.

I’m claiming that Levin may be doing the same.

[LegendHasIt]

Vindicated!

I was right, Marchan is as bad as Engoron:

"Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction," Turley explained. "He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4, and he will still treat them as unanimous."

jury-instructions-conclude-trumps-nyc-criminal-trial-heres-what-jury-told

[Political Junkie Too]

Now that's an answer I can deal with.

Regarding "the game of providing innuendo," I suggest that you read my manifesto on my home page. I agree with you on this point more than you might think.

Regarding Levin, you have the right to claim whatever you want. You just can't claim that "we all know" it too.

Now that you've stated your belief that Levin is trolling the other side, I can't really say. I can only point out what I said before that Levin points to his time as Chief of Staff for Attorney General Ed Meese and I'd lean towards believing that Levin wouldn't want to taint that CV by engaging in misinformation.

That would be like having former a U.S. Attorney like Andrew McCarthy or professors like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley going on Twitter to make taunts at the other side and then go on television claiming to be an expert opinion on the law.

Levin has talked about Joe Biden's likelihood of being indicted for the documents case (before Tur declined to press charges), but Levin was consistent that a sitting President can't be indicted while in office per DoJ policy.

I can't recall what Levin said about Hunter Biden's personal legal cases, but he's not running for President so it can't really be compared to what Levin has said about Trump.

What I will go out on a limb and say is that since never before has a former President been taken to trial during his campaign for a second term in office by the incumbent President's party, the same can be said for the pundits who are reporting on it. They're all making it up as they go, some are doing it better than others, others (like Lawrence O'Donnell are "psyoping" an alternative reality of what's going on. I don't listen to Levin as much as I used to when I was commuting, but what I recall is that he's always stayed within his lane.

-PJ