Trump to judge who threatened to toss him in jail over gag order: 'Give me liberty or give me death'

Perhaps the Trumpians could consider taking the higher moral ground. and see this bloke for what he is and that there is NO double standard. There has not been a situation like this before. This situation is totally unique as is the man himself.

 

Trump has a long long history of witness intimidation and NDAs

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-teenage-rape-accusations-lawsuit-dropped

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/trump-history-trying-to-influence-witnesses/index.html

He learnt it from Roy Cohn

 

I wish they would even put down the bare minimum moral standard but just when I think we have reached the bottom trump digs deeps and they follow - I mean he is an adjudicated rapist for heavens sake!

 

Agree. I think the judge is excersizing a great deal of pateinece. and is still giving Tump latitude. The concern is that if he is jailed, his supportrs might go nutsky , revolt and rsort to violence AGAIN.

 

Well, the difference between hillarys dossier and trumps affair are differences without much distinction.
Except that trump has been criminally charged.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us the LEGAL distinction between calling a hush payment a legal fee and calling a payoff for dirt a legal fee?

 

Fining Trump for blowing gas incessantly is clearly constitutional.

If he wants to comment on the charges and respects America's judicial system, there is nothing to prevent his doing so.

He has repeatedly insisted that he will testify under oath:

"I would testify, absolutely,” he said April 12 ...“I’m testifying. I tell the truth, I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there is no case.”

A week later, after the trial started, he told reporters at the courthouse in Manhattan that "yes" he will testify.​

I presume that the skanky, court-recognized sexual abuse/business fraud is lying again.

He lack the testicular accouterments to take the stand and swear to tell the truth.

 

Tell you what.
When I hear the same twirling from democrats about brandons showers with his daughter and his hair sniffing gropes that they're doing over trump we can talk about moral standards.

 

Exactly!! It is crazy. The more ugly , perverse , illegal unethical and immoral history is revealed, the fiercer they support him. It is weird in how irrational it is.
Or maybe the "real " American is emerging through Trump .

 

What the ones that republicans have read salacious nonsense into?? Altered videos and photos and even tried to use the pics of him consoling his grandson at his son’s funeral? Those claims?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jul/10/instagram-posts/no-biden-didnt-sniff-a-baby-in-this-video-it-was-a/

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2103DW/

You know anyone who is low enough to try and capitalise on THAT moment would also line up to cheer on an adjudicated rapist and fraudster

 

Oh no!
I'm talking about brandons groping and hair sniffing that has already been well documented.

And Brandon's dughter was the one who wrote about showers with daddy. You remember her diary, right? The one FBI SWAT teams confiscated, so that pretty much validated it, don't you think?

Diversion fail

 

There seems to be a degree of gullibility when it comes to making up stuff against Biden.( and believing it)

 

Has it? I know that there is a right wing smear campaign which I have documented and as for the showers - exactly what did she write? Because nowhere did it say he was naked in the shower. Neither did it detail WHEN that occurred or if there was anything other than a straight forward shower. Besides that diary has a really really questionable chain of evidence - any evidence that was actually written by her?

 

Yep! Whilst at the same time ignoring evidence which has been presented in court under oath

 

So your actual problem is that since you think that other people have gotten away with something that that means that trump should get away with his crap. Got it.

 

And you consider something from a kids' diary as fact??? Furthermore...........what are you doing reading a kids personal diary?? Biden is a caring and tactile person. His warmth is expressed in various ways. The fact that some choose to "interpret " some of his behaviior as perverse...........is TEHIR problem. And yet the Trumpes DEFEND emphatically the bloke that pays off a woman he had an affair with right after his wife gave birth to his son. Don't think Trumpers have an ethical position here.

 

Sorry but whatever Biden did does not negate what trump did no matter how much you want it to.

 

Indeed. And then they accuse the Dems of a double standard. !!! Go figure.
That is clinical projection in its most classic form.

 

Well her diary was pretty specific, wasn't it? She was a tweenie and daddy made her very nervous, even to the point she started waiting to shower late at night.
So, you're claim is, daddy took a shower in his clothes?
Why?
And sorry, but a dad taking a shower with his tweenie daughter is never just a shower.
Finally, the fbi didn't do a predawn SWAT team raid to recover the diary because they thought it was fake, and the government didn't charge the reporters with stolen property if it was made up.
Did they?

The point remains.

 

No.
The law should be applied equally.
Trump doesn't get a pass and neither does clinton.
Isn't that what the original point was, trump shouldn't get a pass?
So why did clinton?

 

The images of the diary do not have a good provenance mostly being on X or instagram but here it is



So where does it say what age she was when they took showers together? I have to question why someone would or even could extract your claims out of the above

 

Hillary was investigated.

 

Pass on what?

 

Well, a "kids diary" was taken very seriously by the bidens, the FBI and the DOJ wasn't it?
And in most states what brandon was doing with his daughter was at minimum child abuse.

What trump did, having sex with a porn star, was not illegal. It was morally reprehensible.

We see what you're doing here, simply denying anything brandon did but twirling with outrage at what trump did.
And clinton did.
And kennedy did.

 

As evidence in a theft yes. The rest is projection.

 

'BECAUSE IT’S A KANGAROO COURT RUN BY AN IN-THE-TANK JUDGE?' Why Is the Judge in Trump’s New York Trial Muzzling a Key Defense Witness?

'The legal theory, if you can call it that, behind Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution involves resuscitating lapsed, possible misdemeanors related to bookkeeping categorizations of (totally legal) 'hush money' payments. In order to bypass a pesky 'expired statute of limitations' problem, and to escalate the alleged offenses into dozens of felonies, Bragg says the bookkeeping scheme was undertaken in furtherance of an additional crime that he still has not revealed. The Biden donor judge in the case has somehow allowed this to move forward, which many legal experts (including longtime federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy) point to as a glaring basis for appeal. But the final outcome of such a process is beside the real point of this trial, which is to secure a conviction -- even if temporarily -- against Donald Trump before the November election. '

And the more reprehensible part of the left is fine with this election interference.

'Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened...[Bragg's] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.” '

'If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” ... Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.'

'Trump's defense team wants to engage an expert witness, who literally ran the FEC, to explain why Bragg is wrong. But the Biden donor judge won't let that happen:'

It's fixed,
It's disgusting, and
It's the work of Democrats.