Hodad

This is exactly the silliness I'm talking about. You honestly believe that any trial--let alone a trial of this magnitude--proceeded without any concern for the statute of limitations? Really? Or are you just blindly repeating Trump's unhinged spin? That matter was asked and answered in pre-trial. The COVID extensions (nothing to do with Trump) mean that this case was filed within the extended statute. Trump's absence from the state would also allow, but it's not necessary because of the extensions. Like any witness, some topics are constrained. Same was true for Cohen

A. That's just not true. Clinton was never accused of falsifying business records. There was no business involved. (The campaign got dinged by the FEC for a minor infraction and settled because it was vastly cheaper to do so.) B. Yes, what Trump did was illegal. It is 100% illegal to falsify business records. In isolation it's a misdemeanor. Done with the intent to cover up other crimes those infractions are elevated to felony. And there is no requirement to prove or even try the predicate. Though in this case it's rather clearly baked in with the argument that he falsified the business records as part of an effort to keep Clinton out of office. An argument which the jury seems to have found compelling. And if we're being honest, I think you would have to admit it's obvious that the illegal actions were undertaken to help his campaign. The jury heard compelling insider testimony that this was the case. Hence, justifying the elevation. Those are the laws as they stand. Another court may eventually strike those laws through some rationale, but as it stands today, the state met their burden. And yes, I'm delighted that he's finally a convicted felon. He has done so much harm to do many people and to the very fabric of our democracy. These crimes are small potatoes compared to the rest, but I have to celebrate any instance of Teflon Don held accountable. He's constantly comparing himself to "Alphonse Capone" and now those two villains share one more thing in common: they were finally tripped up on technicalities.

Oh, she very likely does. She's CEO of a notable political digital advertising and influence company. But Merchan properly submitted the question for ethics review and it was confirmed that the employment status of a Judge's relatives is not disqualifying. She doesn't live in his household. If that still bothers you, I'll be waiting for your diatribe about Ginni Thomas, whose very similar work brings money directly into the Thomas household while her husband has political questions before the court. Eh?

No, still. There never WAS a correction. Newsweek never made any such claim. They simply reported on the controversy, and were ethical enough to call Trump and ask him to clarify his remarks.

False. You're repeating falsehoods. The court DID accept Smith as an expert witness. However, only on condition that his testimony was confined to relevant questions rather than color commentary. With that condition, the defense opted not to call him. Do you suppose that he is an expert on falsified business records as well? I'd ask you the same question. What is your best explanation for why Trumpco illegally hid the payments? We're they committing fraud for fun, or can you reasonably infer that they had an objective?

No, dummy. He's not "alleged" to have done them 8 years ago. The evidence established being any reasonable doubt that he did exactly what he was accused of doing. He is now convicted of those charges. You're welcome to hold an opinion that those things shouldn't be illegal, but that doesn't change the facts of the law what happened. And, again, the ex-FEC chair was "allowed" to talk. But only on matters relevant to the charges. So the defense chose not no call him. What you're doing is just unfocused mewling. And nobody has any idea what a "Soros judge" is, you included, but you'll surely keep squawking about it like a good little parrot.

It's really easy 1. Did Trump falsify (fraud) business records to pay his hush money? 2. Did he do so for--art least significantly for--the purpose of his campaign? 3. Did Trump commit fraud (#1) in order to prevent a person (his opponent) from attaining attaining office? OR Did Trump take actions that works falsify his tax records? OR Did Trump seek to circumvent campaign finance laws at certain levels? If the jury is convinced of any portion of 3 (or in this case, clearly all 3) then it simply doesn't matter which crime is the trigger. Any of them elevate the falsified records to low class felonies. They did not have to find him guilty-or even on trial- for #3. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which thing he was trying to cover up through his crimes. As long as the jurors could infer the reasons for the act. But let's get real. This is a jury of living, thinking people. They know that everyone at Trumpco knows that it's wrong and illegal to falsify business records. They know they falsified the records to hide the transactions. They heard ample testimony that the campaign felt that these stories breaking would be a disaster and was operating in crisis mode. So the fixer fixed. Be honest, so you have any doubt in your mind that they concealed the payments to protect the campaign? Even without listening to hours of testimony, is there any question?

You think people will read a question and take it for truth? It's an article about a stupid Twitter debate over what the nepobaby said--a debate of the very question captured in the title. Is the dress blue or white? As an expert editor, what headline would have better represented that debate? I listened through my headphones and I don't think there's any question that he said "right." But that doesn't mean that the riff raff on Twitter aren't debating it.

You clearly aren't familiar with reporting, but that's what news outlets aim to do. They observe something in the world and then investigate it to try to discern the truth. In this case, Newsweek is reporting on a "controversy" on Twitter. They went and investigated, and presented both the controversy and their findings. You could try actually reading the article. In an email statement to Newsweek Wednesday afternoon, Eric Trump clarified his words, writing, "I cannot wait for the day we win, we will, we are right." I'm not sure Newsweek is great anymore, but in this instance you're doing exactly what you were trying to accuse Newsweek of doing. Apparently you're "trash"?

Seriously, just stop talking about things you don't know about. He was convicted for things that he actually did, not his thoughts or anything else. Just the actions.

This is the new flag of fools everywhere? You're going to risk a traffic accident because a criminal was convicted of his crimes? What a buffoon.

You sound like a child talking about things you clearly don't understand. You're just spouting crazy stuff from whatever fever swamp you inhabit when you're not pooping in this pool. Or just as likely, simply parroting Trump himself--a compulsive liar who also knows nothing. 1a) What "additional crime" tacked on at the end? -- That's pure nonsense. He was charged with 34 felony counts over a year ago and was found guilty of the same 34 felony counts. I'm sure the judge is holding his breath for your apology. 1b) Again, pure, absolute nonsense. The jury DID have to agree on what they were finding him guilty of. And they agreed, unanimously, that he was guilty of each of those 34 counts. They agreed unanimously that Trump was guilty of falsifying each of those business records. And they had very explicit instructions on how to do so. 2. You, again, don't specify what you mean here, but assuming you're talking about someone like Bradley Smith, your claim is patently false. The court did agree that he could testify. Trump's attorneys chose not to call him. You're factually wrong about every damn thing on your list, but you'll cry with great emotion and certainty about how the court is crooked and it somehow equates to a "banana republic."🙄

To the contrary, I think his running has a lot to do with the fact that he was facing likely charges. Do you think that if he had not run for office that we would have let him take classified documents, lie about them to the FBI, refuse to return them and then try to physically hide them? -- You really think that would have been a freebie if he hadn't declared? That's silly. --- You think he wouldn't have faced the same charges in Georgia or related to the attempted coup? Water under the bridge? That's silly. Yes, I guarantee we consume different media. Fox news has spent months telling their audience an insane narrative about how unfair it all is that poor Donald will face a jury of his peers to judge his (alleged) crimes. Whereas I'm far more interested in the actual court documents, committee reports, etc. Nobody can avoid the news, but unless you're reading broadly--or better still, reading original sources--then you're likely not getting the full story.

How many other politicians? None that I can recall. Most become unelectable after they are caught in compromising situations. Even Nixon had the grace to retire. For some reason (his politics of spite) when Trump gets caught it only make him more beloved to his devoted followers. The weird thing is that you blame the investigators, the prosecutors, the judges and the juries--everyone except the guy committing the crimes. Like, there's no question that he actually did most of what he's been accused of, but the crimes don't bother you. It bothers you that people try to hold him accountable. Isn't there some piece of you that finds that weird?

Fiction 1: Your entry into this conversation is a fiction. Your premise is that the only reason for this murder is because "Democrats cheer on the lawlessness in the streets." That is patently false. Whether anyone cheered on these protesters isn't relevant and if there was "cheering" it didn't precipitate anything. This was a peaceful protest. Any "lawlessness" is not applicable to the crowd he encountered in the crosswalk. Perry is the one who was lawless. He ran the red light (law broken) allegedly while texting (law broken) and drove into a crowd that was literally in the crosswalk, where pedestrians have the right of way (law broken). It is a fact that every bit of lawlessness that precipitated this particular incident was on the part of the premeditated murderer who has now been freed by a cynical, self-interested governor looking to score cheap political points. You claimed that the "crowd stopped him" as if they were the actors inciting the incident. Again, a fiction. The crowd simply existed in a space they were legally permitted to exist--the crosswalk--where Perry was the party taking the illegal action that precipitated the encounter. Yes, the crowd reacted to nearly being struck, but Perry was the actor that caused the encounter. And, finally, Perry shot a man unlawfully. The "lawlessness" in this incident is entirely on one side of the argument, and it isn't yours. Yet you spin fictions about it. Perry fantasized about killing protesters. He expressed extreme racial animus. He described, in detail, how he would conduct the shooting, and then lived out his fantasy as described. Read the already-linked trial evidence. He debated with a friend the conditions under which one could shoot protestors and get away with it -- "a good shoot." Then he searched (on record) for where the protests were happening and then went out of his way to take himself to Austin and to those protests. The evidence was overwhelming. So overwhelming that a jury of 12 Texans--where gun rights and "stand your ground" protections always get the benefit of the doubt, could not muster up any reasonable doubt that Perry was guilty of murder. Because he jury got a full tour of this creep's mind: 76 pages of racist, radicalized unhinged extremism. They got to watch him obsess over videos about killing protesters and discuss at length why it was okay. This pardon is a shameful act. And one doesn't have to be "liberal" to recognize that. Reason Magazine: Daniel Perry's Pardon Makes a Mockery of Self-Defense

After a lifetime of lying, cheating, stealing and sowing hatred and discord, it would be fitting if, for once, he were compelled to do something to make the world a better place.

Sure it was... Because stealing from his charity, running a scam "university," financial fraud and sexual abuse all weren't quite enough. --Andd that's just what's been proven in court. But now that he's a convicted felon, he'll start to sound like a bad guy.

You are being ridiculous. Like "lizard people secretly run the world" crazy. Of course he won't impose the maximum sentence. Nowhere remotely close. Reset your premise and try again.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. The justice system works. Nobody above the law.

This is not remotely the story. The level of misinformation has crossed over into a lie. Read your article. The FBI agents were actually prohibited from using force--unless they were attacked, at which point they were permitted self defense. Surely you don't think that an ex-president is free to kill agents and they should be prohibited self defense? Surely, you're not THAT deep in the cult? Of course Trump will lie about it, but you should do better.

Oh, good now you're pretending that one cannot drive into a crowd without actually striking someone. Which is just silly. According to witnesses he nearly struck several people, including a protester in a wheelchair who wasn't able to move as quickly. You are not pointing out "facts." Nearly everything you've said about this incident has been false, and all in the service of excusing what, by all reasonable appearances, was a deliberate act. Perry fantasized about it, researched it, looked for the opportunity, and finally made it happen in the exact manner he described. You want to throw stones about "lawlessness" being the cause, blaming protesters, when Perry was lawless at every step, running the red light, texting while driving (by his telling), driving into a crowd of pedestrians, and ultimately escalating to an illegal shooting. Your "facts" are fictions woven to defend the indefensible.

Not a single witness said that Foster raised the gun. A vivid imagination is not a license to kill. Hence, Perry was convicted. Twelve Texans--Texans FFS--rejected his utterly absurd self defense claim and recognized that he was guilty beyond even a reasonable doubt. No doubt. But you will defend the indefensible because the murderer shot a protester with whom you have political differences.

As always, you just double down. If only the crowd hadn't reacted to some jackass driving into them, none of this would have happened! Jeebus. Shameless.

Great, you quoted the exact same line I quoted on page 1 in response to your false claim that Foster was aiming at Perry. This is like a treadmill. So, in summary, even Perry admits Foster wasn't aiming at him. Foster simply had a rifle on a sling. Which is not just cause to shoot someone. Hence, why Perry was convicted. Well, that and the substantial evidence that Perry planned the murder. I do find it funny that you are arguing that it's justified to shoot anyone who is open carrying.