Posted on 06/01/2024 12:40:41 AM PDT by knighthawk
Megyn Kelly and Dan Abrams ended up yelling at one another in a blistering, five-minute long argument over Donald Trump's guilty verdict in New York on Thursday.
Kelly, 53, who has a long history of falling in and out with the former president, appeared as a guest on Dan Abrams Live on News Nation to react to the news of the day.
After admitting the jury had no choice but to convict based on what was presented, she spent about a minute and a half trashing the judge and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Like Gov Blogovich and Rev Jackson’s son...
...and every 2 bit lawyer in the and every other country.....
It’s only bad if you are on the wrong side of the paid-for media.
Obviously, sleazy Trump doesn’t pay the media enough and they are NOT happy about it. They ADORE the Clintons....now. Foundations are a funny thing.
After the 2016 win, I overhead an irate dude chatting with his boyfriend about the lawfare we’re seeing today.
There’s one particular and effective way of dealing with these criminals, but damn, the legit process escapes me... oh well.
He’s just flat out wrong about the law regarding campaign finance. The FEC Chairman has explicitly said campaign finance is only for things you definitely would not have spent money on but for your campaign.
There are lots of reasons why somebody would pay somebody else to sign an NDA. It happens all the time with celebrities, corporate executives, etc etc. How can they know that Trump was paying her to sign the NDA and go away only for his campaign?
Secondly, there simply is no limit to how much you can contribute to your own campaign. He did not use campaign funds for this. He used his own money.
Thirdly, they already tried prosecuting John Edwards on exactly the set of facts. Well, it was even worse because Edwards explicitly did use campaign funds to have his mistress sign an NDA. Result? Not Guilty. This is NOT an FEC violation.
These journalists are so ridiculous! Don't they think anyone of their readers will watch the video?
Exactly! Why do these talking heads never know things that so many of their readers/viewers know?
Notice how they did not allow the defense to address campaign finance law under the guise that the campaign was part of the case.
But, Nutter Dan argues that anyone paying for an NDA and running for office is a campaign finance violation.
These people are going to tie themselves into a knot justifying the guilty verdict not realizing voters don’t care about that. Voters just see Lawfare.
And they set a campaign finance record. So in the end it is all about the campaign.
The LAUGHABLE JURY certainly had the opportunity to do the right thing.
THEY FAILED AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED ...THEY ARE NOT AMERICANS...BECAUSE AMERICANS...REAL AMERICANS ALL SAW WHAT THIS WAS
I HOPE I NEVER HEAR THEIR NAMES.
LET THEM WALLOW IN THEIR IGNORANCE.
I hoped they are doxxed and have to go into witness protection. They deserve it.
Megyn Kelly never did have a brain.
A jury can do anything it wants. The judge's admonitions and directives about their decision and how they are to arrive at it have all the legal force of . . . suggestions.
THEY WERE “ATTENTION GRABBING” MORONS.
I hope they live in anonymous world. They won’t like that.
But, the judge wouldn’t let him testify for the defense.
‘News Nation’...LOLOL!
Nah. Trump didn’t have a prayer of even getting a hung jury in NYC. The rot is that deep. A black man accused of raping a white girl in the Jim Crow south had a better chance of getting a fair trial than Trump.
Which is why Trump can not win on appeal to a New York appellate court.
The truk strike on New York must resume wth a vengence.
America must ostracize all that is New York and New Yorkers
Actually Johnathon Turley presented something pretty similar......He said that the trial in general combined with the jury instructions made it pretty much impossible for the jury to do anything but convict.
I personally don’t agree with that, but it is an arguable premise.
You're answering a different question--a demographic one.
Megyn Kelly, noted analyst (*snort!*), was taking on a legal issue--whether the facts as presented and the judge's admonitions, desires, and dreams limit what a jury can conclude about the case and its witnesses. The answer is no.
A jury can throw out all the assertions of lawyers, witnesses, and the law itself and just go with their gut, if enough of them agree. The downside is that if they're poorly or dishonestly chosen or administered by counsel and the judge, they can be just biased, unscrupulous dummies making sh*t up.
Man, look at all that diversity...
Looks like the typical WNBA team, outside of the one Caitlyn Clark plays for.
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.