POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Judge Cannon accomplished her boss' needed work, for sure.

 

Just like the Dem judges are trying to do for their cult. Works both ways and its disgusting.

 

This isn't a "both sides" deal. Cannon is a judge put there by Trump himself who's made all kinds of specious delay rulings, most which were quickly derided and dismissed by other courts.

This isn't the same as Trump breaking a number of laws and facing due process as a result. Hell, I don't even think he's in front of all Dem judges as it is.

 

Lol! Never your cult.

 

That's not an answer, "You're in a cult!". Your cult, I suppose, seems to think the existence of the case is the evidence. I noted why this judge seems particularly compromised in comparison with the judges you note and the best you could muster was a silly "teams" accusation. So, I'm going to suppose you don't have much substance to your argument.

 

Any moron can look at the hush money case and see it's purely political. The damn DA ran on it. Even left friendly media outlets have said it's a jokr. It's almost as big of joke as the Carroll case was. Best part about that one is one of the moron Dems that pushed that law through is now tangled up in a rape charge and now thinks the law is now unfair. I believe the mayor is also caught up in a case too. I wonder how their cases come out in that Democratic state. Cannon had to do what she did because Smith is a moron who bungled up the evidence. Then you have Fani Willis who now also has a case falling apart. The justice system is in deep trouble.

 

What a guy

https://www.google.com/amp/s/gazett...05d397ee-b152-5569-abe9-3be66501af57.amp.html

 

Seems like Fani Willis is having the kind of trouble prosecutors used to have with organized crime in NY.

 

This is a lot to not say very much, at all, to counter my opinion. The fact that the Dem lawmaker who made the law about rape victims is now caught up in it bothers me none. The rest is a lot of what you believe to be true. "Any moron" is not evidence, it's just what you want to see. You are parroting every one of the persecuted angles promoted in Trunp's favor with the similar lack of substance. The judge is out to get him. The DAs are out to get him. The jury in the Carroll case is out to get him. The Fani Willis case is not "falling apart".

What I do know is my comment was about Cannon, a judge who specifically has been delaying case with dubious actions and, even stronger evidence, her judgments quickly and decisively reversed by the conservative leaning 11th appeals court. This is on top of the massive conflict of interest in terms of her position came from her being appointed by the person she's now making judgments on.

 

Good, hope he gets burned, provided he gets his own due process and proven true. Who is defending him?

 

So you just shit on what I had to say and said it's a lot of what I believe to be true and then go on to criticize Cannon with basically zero evidence. So if all the Trump cases that he loses get to the Supreme Court and get overturned you will say the cases brought were bogus? Let's get this on record.

 

He's a Dem, he is safe. Just like the mayor.

 

Why should I? There was a judgment in the Carroll case and you state it was a joke, designed to screw Trump and not about the law. The Supreme Court is 1/3rd appointed by him, personally, a benefit no other person I can ever remember having in front of the Supreme Court.

Can't I just follow your lead, particularly for a Supreme Court which has become massively political and, even you would say, very right leaning? If the Court overturns the case and it's based upon solid reasoning, then I'll go for it.

Besides, I did offer some evidence of Cannon in terms of the specific legal criticism and overturning of her decision by a conservative appeals court. Quite honestly, I only moderately give a shit about this case. It being argued after the election bothers me very little. I am way more interested and invested in the Georgia case, since it is actually about elections and affects us far more directly.

 

Huh? What does this even mean? It never ceases to amaze me how you get on your soap box about people arguing from their own "cult" or "teams" (Well, from one side) when you continually make comments like this.

 

In normal times they would recuse themselves.

 

Evidence? She asked for a third party to review the records seized because they could include client attorney privileged materials. Clearly she is in Trumps pocket. It got overturned and the case moved on. Now Smith shit the bed so it's halted. So you will only accept the supreme courts decision based on what you believe to be true? If you don't like it you will say it's politics? Let's get this on record.

 

Should basically the entire supreme court recuse themselves on anything Trump? Have previous justices done that?

 

They are dem politicians in a heavily dem state. Let's see how their cases play out if they even get to court.

 

Again, shouldn't I just follow your lead?

"If I don't like it", pfffft. What a silly, loaded question to get this "on record" as some kind of gotcha. Whenever there's something to look at, I'll see what they say. I'm not preemptively making any kind of definitive statement. Why would anyone?

 

Yes, but you say they won't already simply because they are Democrats. Is this universal? Do Republicans in Tennessee get free reign because this is a heavily GOP state.