ozimoron

If you're looking for possible conspiracy theories in this, CNN deliberately decided to pump up Trump in order to reduce the chances for his rivals. CNN understand that Trump can't win an election from here. CNN may well have delivered Trump his biggest boost yet in his quest for the 2024 GOP nomination — an ironic twist for a news network to which the former president almost always used to append the term “Fake News.” All of the traits that Trump’s hardcore supporters admire were on full display on Wednesday — the belligerence, the swatting-aside of criticism and the mocking of opponents and adversaries. He never came close to being trapped in any politically awkward spot — save perhaps when declining to answer whether he wanted Russia or Ukraine to win the war sparked by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3999116-five-takeaways-from-trumps-cnn-town-hall/

The questions were never going to get too hard in a rigged audience. It was the same old speech. "Not a single tough question was asked of Trump by any audience member." https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3999116-five-takeaways-from-trumps-cnn-town-hall/

It was deliberate policy decision by CNN. Very stupid. A far bigger problem was a decision, presumably taken by producers, to have a live audience “made up of Republicans and undeclared voters who tend to take part in New Hampshire’s Republican primary,” as Collins put it in her introductory remarks. What that meant was an audience loudly supportive of Trump at every turn — and plainly disdainful of Collins. Around halfway through the event, Trump’s description of Collins as “a nasty person” drew whoops of delight. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3999116-five-takeaways-from-trumps-cnn-town-hall/

Of course they were on his side. 'Irresponsible' CNN accused of packing Trump town hall with 400 'sympathetic' voters https://www.rawstory.com/cnn-town-hall/

They are hiding confidential sources. The press do it, the FBI has always done it. They said so. The FBI don't "fear" anything.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) seemed to admit on Wednesday that the GOP doesn’t have the “hard proof” linking President Joe Biden to any criminal scheme involving his family’s business affairs, adding that people will just have to “infer what’s happening” on this issue. Along with Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Johnson has led the charge for several years on a probe of the Biden family—most especially the president’s son Hunter. At the same time, the Wisconsin lawmaker acknowledged that it would be difficult for the committee to actually prove its case, suggesting they’d have to rely on insinuation, innuendo, and conservatives distrust of the media. https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-sen-ron-johnson-admits-biden-probe-lacks-hard-proof-to-support-hype

That was Comer and Grassleys' characterization of the document, not that of the FBI.

If the FBI considered that the documents were incriminating they would have said so. There's no deep state cover up going on here. The documents clearly don't show what Comer wants them to show and so the FBI don't see the need to breach their internal policies regarding record handling. The GOP are already under pressure to produce evidence which they have so far been unable to do. This is just a last ditch fishing expedition. They might catch a flathead if Comey looks in the mirror.

GOP's Biden family investigation on brink of collapse as pressure mounts to produce evidence In response to the new findings put forward by GOP Oversight, White House assistant Ian Sams tweeted, "Seriously?This was debunked literally 4 years ago." https://www.rawstory.com/james-comer-2659991386/

They are still witnesses and their testimony does count. It's actually a lot stronger evidence than refusing to even deny the allegations under oath. I can't imagine why the jury decided to believe her and not him.

So, in the trial, Tacopina had no clue how to win the case but now that he lost it he can suddenly win it on appeal? My money is on Trump not appealing.

The verdict probably yes but in legal terms, no. Had Trump given any testimony the jury would have been required to consider that testimony on it's merits, just like hers. I guess you buy into the "NY hates me" mantra?

He has to say those words to a jury for it to be admitted as evidence. Not to fox news.

He only has to say he wasn't there. He declined even to do that.

Alibi? He has to testify in his own defense that he wasn't there before he can claim an alibi.

Do journalists walk around all day with notebooks in their hand to take notes. Do they even want to? That somebody didn't do something is really tenuous. If it was used in evidence it didn't work. There was credible evidence of an event of a sexual nature occurring between them and Trump made no defense. Simples.

Why do you keep saying there was no evidence?

That isn't how the trial went down. She had contemporaneous witnesses, he refused to testify.

Or he could have testified. He offered no defense other than denial through his lawyers. He was never going to win.

I'm tempted to use the winning joke again. The gift that keeps on giving.

Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, did not put on a defense and ultimately opted not to testify. Like any defendant in a civil case, he was not required to appear in court for trial or any proceedings and has a right not to testify in his own defense.

Cue the screams about bought and paid for NY jurors.

Why don't they dare? Do you feel like some want to?

The greatest tragedy was the many extra deaths as a direct result of politically inspired misinformation. Thank god it's over, if it really is. I'm just glad I took every precaution I could, got 4 shots and wore masks around people. I attribute being alive to those principles.

That would be better than one agent falsely claiming a candidate was still under investigation. And years later, still no indictment, no grand jury and no subpoenas. Go figure.