Trump trial in Fulton County will be televised, judge says

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

Fine. But the topic here is: 
Trump trial in Fulton County will be televised, judge says

 

That is, if it is not moved to Federal Court.

aah and there's you posting pics of the Clinton supporters disappointment.

[Walker88]

Popcorn futures are limit up.

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Excellent. It will be fun to watch Trump squirm and to see his antics. My guess is the judge will have little patience for his juvenile behavior. Can we see it here? It would be great entertainment.

Yes -- if it is not moved to Federal Court where there is no TV allowed.

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

aah and there's you posting pics of the Clinton supporters disappointment.

Yes -- my favorite example of too soon getting your hopes up .

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes -- if it is not moved to Federal Court where there is no TV allowed.

It won't be moved.

 

Mark Meadows made a series of errors in his testimony, given in an attempt to move his case from Georgia court to a federal court, possibly harming Meadows himself and the former president, according to a legal expert.

NYU law professor Ryan Goodman said in a social media post that Meadows "testified he got involved in false electors scheme" because he didn't want to get yelled at by the former president.

"This will bolster prosecutors' cases," Goodman added, noting that the testimony lays the blame at Trump's feet.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/meadows-admission-huge/

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes -- my favorite example of too soon getting your hopes up .

Fine. The topic however is.

 

Trump trial in Fulton County will be televised, judge says

[Walker88]

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I can't help but feel the weaponization of the justice system against Trump could backfire badly if it is televised.

 

He's going to be in his element and whatever you think of him it's hard to deny the man has charisma. The whole nation will be glued to it, Trump will be hilarious and there is no such thing as bad publicity, 

 

 

Maybe it's time you give up the shibboleth of 'weaponization'?

 

You still cannot explain:

 

---Why trump stole TS/SCI, SAP, Codeword, HCS and RD docs, then lied about returning them.

---Why trump pressured Raffensperger to 'just find me 11.780 votes' AFTER Raffensperger told trump 3 recounts and investigations showed zero fraud. The ONLY explanation is trump meant "cheat for me"

---Why trump told Cohen to pay off Stormy, and then book it as a business expense

---Why trump told his goobers to come to DC on 6 Jan, as "it will be wild !", when 6 January was merely a pro forma certification of an election and such an activity had been done dozens of times in US history without ever being "wild"

---Why trump was intimately involved and approving of the fake elector scheme to subvert US democracy (according to (R) witness testimony under oath before a grand jury

 

Sane people call what DoJ has done as 'following the rule of law'

 

Cultists call it 'weaponization'.

[spidermike007]

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes -- if it is not moved to Federal Court where there is no TV allowed.

I think having this in state court is what this is all about. A far higher chance of a conviction, with a more limited jury pool. I am hoping they do not allow the trail to be moved.

 

“They would want a jury picked from a wider area than just Fulton County alone,” Atlanta defense attorney Jack Martin said of Trump’s attorneys. “Fulton County is overwhelmingly Democratic, although there are pockets of Republican voters. But getting the wider area would give them fewer Democratic-leaning counties — and jurors —to worry about.”

 

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/will-georgia-case-against-trump-end-up-in-federal-court/ADQWGZTHJVAXJHXPGQILZ5VOYA/

[xylophone]

21 hours ago, JonnyF said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66274979

 

Dumb Maga nuts/goobas is the answer you seek.

[spidermike007]

2 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Maybe it's time you give up the shibboleth of 'weaponization'?

 

You still cannot explain:

 

---Why trump stole TS/SCI, SAP, Codeword, HCS and RD docs, then lied about returning them.

---Why trump pressured Raffensperger to 'just find me 11.780 votes' AFTER Raffensperger told trump 3 recounts and investigations showed zero fraud. The ONLY explanation is trump meant "cheat for me"

---Why trump told Cohen to pay off Stormy, and then book it as a business expense

---Why trump told his goobers to come to DC on 6 Jan, as "it will be wild !", when 6 January was merely a pro forma certification of an election and such an activity had been done dozens of times in US history without ever being "wild"

---Why trump was intimately involved and approving of the fake elector scheme to subvert US democracy (according to (R) witness testimony under oath before a grand jury

 

Sane people call what DoJ has done as 'following the rule of law'

 

Cultists call it 'weaponization'.

Trump uses PR firms to come up with the terms he then pushes onto his devotees, who embrace them wholeheartedly. The rest of the world, those with higher levels of discrimination and the ability to filter out nonsense, see this pretty clearly. Weaponization, build the wall, the witch hunt, etc. It all becomes very boring, due to the stunning lack of imagination Trump possesses.

[xylophone]

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

He's going to be in his element and whatever you think of him it's hard to deny the man has charisma. The whole nation will be glued to it, Trump will be hilarious and there is no such thing as bad publicity, 

On the contrary, his inflated ego and low intellect will combine to pour complete and utter BS out of his fat lips and if the past is anything to go by, will incriminate him.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

Most see Biden as a liar protecting his son. They also know Clintons liars.

 

They saw Trump leading on election night the magically behind next morning.

 

Nothing to see.

Do you know how votes are counted in the US?

 

I assume you don't, which is why you made your silly statement.

 

For your homework, learn how votes are counted. Learn the safety procedures involved in getting ballots to counting centers. Learn when absentee ballots (like the one trump, ivanka, jared and others used to vote) are opened and counted.

 

There's no mystery if you know how it's done. Ignorance of the procedure is fertile ground for embracing conspiracies and nonsense.

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It won't be moved.

 

Mark Meadows made a series of errors in his testimony, given in an attempt to move his case from Georgia court to a federal court, possibly harming Meadows himself and the former president, according to a legal expert.

NYU law professor Ryan Goodman said in a social media post that Meadows "testified he got involved in false electors scheme" because he didn't want to get yelled at by the former president.

"This will bolster prosecutors' cases," Goodman added, noting that the testimony lays the blame at Trump's feet.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/meadows-admission-huge/

 

Per reading Meadows Motion, no matter how many charges there are, it only takes one decision that Meadows was performing in his official capacity to qualify for removal.

 

And Raffsenperger is quoted as saying: 

Secretary Raffensperger confirmed Mr. Meadows’s
limited role in the call (consistent with audio recording introduced into
evidence), noting that Mr. Meadows “was acting on behalf of the
President,” Tr. 219:14; making clear that he (Raffsenperger) did not believe Mr. Meadows’s participation or statements on the call were
“inappropriate,” Tr. 220:16; and acknowledging that Mr. Meadows did
not make any requests to change vote totals,

 

So we'll see.

[ozimoron]

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

Per reading Meadows Motion, no matter how many charges there are, it only takes one decision that Meadows was performing in his official capacity to qualify for removal.

 

And Raffsenperger is quoted as saying: 

Secretary Raffensperger confirmed Mr. Meadows’s
limited role in the call (consistent with audio recording introduced into
evidence), noting that Mr. Meadows “was acting on behalf of the
President,” Tr. 219:14; making clear that he (Raffsenperger) did not believe Mr. Meadows’s participation or statements on the call were
“inappropriate,” Tr. 220:16; and acknowledging that Mr. Meadows did
not make any requests to change vote totals,

 

So we'll see.

Raffensperger claiming that Meadows was acting on behalf of the president means nothing. He is not the arbiter of whether that's true or not. Meadows is prevented by law from electioneering under the Hatch Act. He was clearly outside of his remit.

[watthong]

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I can't help but feel the weaponization of the justice system against Trump could backfire badly if it is televised.

 

He's going to be in his element and whatever you think of him it's hard to deny the man has charisma. The whole nation will be glued to it, Trump will be hilarious and there is no such thing as bad publicity, 

 

 

"The weaponization of the justice system" - Another oximoron coming from the fertile (as in fertilizer) communal gray matter of the GOP. Listen,

 

DOJ job is to persecute and punish wrong-doers. You don't do this by wearing flowers in your hair or chanting psalms. DOJ by its nature (raison d'etre - pd my french) is to serve as a weapon, at the disposition of the American people. You don't go to the DOJ to get marriage licenses or birth certificates. Most (sadly, most but not all) adult Americans know this.

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think having this in state court is what this is all about. A far higher chance of a conviction, with a more limited jury pool. I am hoping they do not allow the trail to be moved.

That may be true. But at some of those charged were government employees at the time of the charges so the question becomes were they performing an official function or was this gross political activity.

 

And, at least according to the Meadows legal argument, it only takes one such acting in official capacity to move that individual's trial to Federal court.

 

This is just a motion for venue. It is not the criminal trial.

Edited September 2, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[Walker88]

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump uses PR firms to come up with the terms he then pushes onto his devotees, who embrace them wholeheartedly. The rest of the world, those with higher levels of discrimination and the ability to filter out nonsense, see this pretty clearly. Weaponization, build the wall, the witch hunt, etc. It all becomes very boring, due to the stunning lack of imagination Trump possesses.

"stunning lack of imagination"?

 

How can you say that! Why donny came up with those 'who coulda thunk that' nicknames like "Sleepy", "Low IQ", "Low Energy", "Shifty", "Pocahontas", etc.

 

Imagine with that kind of cleverness how successful trump could have been on the Vaudeville Circuit or in the Catskills in the 1940s and 1950s. donny coulda been a contenda! You know, "many people are saying nobody makes up better nicknames then donny".

 

His wit is only matched by his intellect. Who but donny could have suggested injecting Lysol or sticking a UV light up one's butt to cure Covid? I mean, where's the Nobel Prize in Medicine? He's a stable genius, you know.

[ozimoron]

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

I am just reading the defense position in the docket, You don't have to agree. 

You make it sound like you concur with Raffensberger's interpretation. I'm just pointing out the fly in that ointment.

[Walker88]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Raffensperger claiming that Meadows was acting on behalf of the president means nothing. He is not the arbiter of whether that's true or not. Meadows is prevented by law from electioneering under the Hatch Act. He was clearly outside of his remit.

It's also illegal to follow an illegal order, so no way Meadows was acting in his capacity as a Federal employee. Nor was anyone else.

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump uses PR firms to come up with the terms he then pushes onto his devotees, who embrace them wholeheartedly. The rest of the world, those with higher levels of discrimination and the ability to filter out nonsense, see this pretty clearly. Weaponization, build the wall, the witch hunt, etc. It all becomes very boring, due to the stunning lack of imagination Trump possesses.

No, he's got no money left for PR firms, his PAC has run out of money for his legal fees so he's resorted to selling mugs and t shirts, all he does now is throw buzzwords against the wall and see what sticks, his devotees lap it up.

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

Why dont you get a life.

Touched a nerve did he. LOL.

[jerrymahoney]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Raffensperger claiming that Meadows was acting on behalf of the president means nothing. He is not the arbiter of whether that's true or not. Meadows is prevented by law from electioneering under the Hatch Act. He was clearly outside of his remit.

This is a just a motion for venue. not the trial .

[jerrymahoney]

 

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You make it sound like you concur with Raffensberger's interpretation. I'm just pointing out the fly in that ointment.

I read the docket. That is their position for removal . It is up to the judge to decide on the motion.

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[watthong]

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Per reading Meadows Motion, no matter how many charges there are, it only takes one decision that Meadows was performing in his official capacity to qualify for removal.

Lucky for us mere mortals, Mark Meadows does not make laws. Per common sense, the reserve should be the law:  it only takes one decision that Meadows was NOT performing in his official capacity to DIS-qualify for removal.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

This is a just a motion for venue. not the trial .

Irrelevant. Raffensberger had no legal basis for his comment and he was under oath.

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Irrelevant. Raffensberger had no legal basis for his comment and he was under oath.

Well that settles that, clearly.

[transam]

I hope we see the bloke slapped down from his usual diatribe that the thicko's fall for, no way he is going to over ride the Judge......

 

Could be fun...........????

[watthong]

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You make it sound like you concur with Raffensberger's interpretation. I'm just pointing out the fly in that ointment.

That the way he - to be clear, I'm referring to the one you were responding to - often "sounds." There is this trick in the English language. Someone simply pointed out to you: "That guy parted his hair to the left side." You have to wonder why he had to say that...

Edited September 2, 2023 by watthong

[bignok]

14 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Touched a nerve did he. LOL.

Just wondering why you guys dont have a life outside hating famous people

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

Just wondering why you guys dont have a life outside hating famous people

You claimed to have 80% of posters on ignore but you sure seem to make a lot of replies to people with inane comments

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bkk Brian