Posted on 05/28/2024 5:43:42 PM PDT by conservative98
The Republicans don't fight back [well, except for the ones that joesbucks hates].
Any future effective political enemy of the Democrats and the Left can expect a dog-and-pony show trial like this one, on the most flimsy of Trumped-up charges and phony legal "constructions".
these are the charges. https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-a-list-of-the-34-charges-donald-trump-faces-in-his-hush-money-trial-120050092.html#:~:text=The%20Manhattan%20district%20attorney's%20office,adult%20film%20star%20Stormy%20Daniels.
Not all judges act like Merchan, and he is far from the majority of them. However, for judges like him, almost nothing is ever done, either by prerogative writ, or by a court of judicial discipline. There are also a fair number of elderly judges on the federal bench who either have lost their ability to hide their biases, or have gone senile. Lawyers don’t dare comment on that publicly.
And you don't have a problem with denying Trump the witnesses that he wants to put on? Seriously? Only Juan Merchan is allowed to explain what is or isn't a campaign spending violation when he's only a lowly county judge and the head of the national agency in charge of that stuff was available to testify on Trump's behalf? No sixth amendment right for Trump to obtain witnesses in his favor, and you're okay with that?
And denying the defense the whole nature of the charges so they can prepare an effective defense? You're okay with that, too?
Where did this latest tax evasion "other possible underlying crime" come from that was brought up in closing? How come Trump wasn't allowed to put up any defense against the alleged structuring of payments to Cohen in order to pay his income taxes during his turn to confront witnesses against him? There's another sixth amendment violation right there!
You're okay with prosecutors arguing new charges in front of a jury after both sides have rested their cases?
I guess other than all of that, "for the most part, yes" the trial was fair to people "who don't share my worldview."
-PJ
All I can really say is this:
What is "worldview?"
I stated my opinions about this case, and Joe said it was my "worldview." That's a pretty encompassing assertion. Again, telling me what I think.
But the truly revealing part was that Joe, perhaps inadvertently, revealed his worldview as being opposite to my own when I pointed out everything that was wrong with the trial and Joe thought it was "for the most part" a fair trial.
So I guess it's my turn to put thoughts into Joe's head for him.
Joe believes that it's okay to deny a defendant the right to present favorable witnesses if they don't like him.
Joe believes that it's okay to have secret charges against a defendant that are only revealed after the defendant rests his case in court, if they don't like him.
Joe believes that it's okay to ignore the statute of limitations on minor infractions by using a secret charge that nobody knows about until after both sides rest their cases and then tell the jury that they can make up whatever "crime" they want to fit the secret charges, if they don't like the defendant.
That's Joe's worldview, and it is opposite to mine. Basically, the worldview that Joe says "others take a different view," is one where they can deny the constitutional rights of people they don't like.
It's hard for me to call that kind of person a conservative.
-PJ
This is the question you put to joesbucks in post #138 that he answered in post #142:
FR Democrat Party operative "joesbucks": "For the most part yes."
Joe Scarborough and Nicolle Wallace would echo those words.
saved.
I believe Trump has had a fair trial. Should I be charged with crimes, I hope I would be treated as well as Trump.
Whatever. Trump has been treated with kid gloves in general. Even some of his previous attorneys have said overall he has had a fair shake.
NeverTrump scum.
We’ve been dismissed by the Democrat Party political operative on Free Republic, joesbucks...
Joe & Nicole have more gravitas than you.
Dancing ever closer to another vacation, Democrat operative.
Nope. You are for your ongoing harassment.
As if that would stop a Democrat activist.
There is such a thing as a "directed verdict."
No, he wouldn’t. He’s a Democrat.
That’s why they’ll do it.
I harassed Eschoir, and didn't get booted from the board.
I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two of you.
Right.
The judge denied Trump permission to go to his wife Melania's birthday celebration and wouldn't let Trump attend the SCOTUS oral arguments on Presidential immunity. He also initially was non-committal for weeks when Trump sought permission to attend his son Barron's high school graduation. Merchan approved the request on Barron's graduation when a juror had a dentist appointment and the contrast was more than Merchan could handle.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.