GMaster0 said:

---

So.. this is pretty much a documents case when you come right down to it, and the prosecutors have those documents. They really don't even have much more of a case to make than "look at this" "Then Trump did this and this" Here's why that's illegal.

The defense doesn't really have the option to challenge the facts of what happened. That's established. The majority of their defense is what you see here. Trying to pick jurors who will not vote to convict Trump. Filing endless motions to delay. Trying to get the case thrown out on highly questionable grounds... etc etc.

But they have to do all of that in front of this judge, who clearly is not interested in any flavor of bull they have available.

Whatever.

He's not gonna see prison time. I'd love to be wrong, but I just don't think it's in the cards. But I would be shocked if he isn't convicted on most of the counts. And in the meantime, he's going to be stuck in this courthouse 4 days out of 7 every week for months. And a percentage of Republicans and Independents probably won't vote for Trump if he's convicted.

But all this is very Shakespearean, the man who previously ran on a platform of locking up his opponent has multiple trials where he could be locked up.

---

You think he should get locked up? smh

If anyone should have already been locked up, it's people from the time before and around the 2016 election. Those clowns legitimately broke the law, but the only reason nothing has happened to them is they are attached to the Democrat Party.

the leftist msm will be coming out with the threatening maga narrative in just a minute like they did in their last faux trial

NEW: Death threats & antisemitic rants "inundated" Justice Engoron & his law clerk after Donald Trump attacked them on social media, says top NY court security official, citing 275 transcribed pages.

The threats are "serious and credible and not hypothetical or speculative." pic.twitter.com/AYhnB9eium

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) November 22, 2023

Yes

Science Denier said:

---

eric76 said:

---

damiond said:

---

After questioning one juror, Judge Merchan admonished Trump: While the juror was "12 feet from your client," "your client was audibly" saying something in the direction of the juror.

"I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make this crystal clear."

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 16, 2024

another leftist hack judge
further proof of our banana republic where the republican presidential candidate cannot get a fair trial and all of this is a leftist witchhunt

---

So it is leftist to have the notion that defendants do not have the right to intimidate members of the jury?

You gotta be kidding.

---

It's leftist for a judge to accuse Trump intimidating a witness when Trump was talking to his attorney and the judge didn't hear a word Trump said to his lawyer.

---

Trying to maintain control over his court is not a leftist characteristic. While the law considers all to be equal, in court, the judge is supreme. It is completely authoritarian, a very right-wing characteristic. The courtroom has traditionally been a right-wing arena, after all. Strict adherence to the rules. Deference to the one in command. Obey the rule of law. While one can certainly disagree with judge, obedience is required. Disobedience is punished. Such is a court of law.

The use of leftist in this instance indicates a disregard of its meaning and simply an attempt to use it as an insult, an ad hominem attack. Like calling someone a MFer when you know absolutely nothing about their sexual preferences. Just like Trump, use insults as an attempt to gain a perceived advantage.

Just a reminder, Trump was not punished in any way. The judge saw a situation that needed to be stopped, so he stopped it. If Trump keeps it up, punishment is likely, however.

In a normal trial with a normal defendant, the defendant would not be allowed close enough to a juror for such an exchange to take place. Trump was given special privilege that permitted it to happen. And he abused that privilege. Typical (and expected).

Rapier108 said:

---

Everything Trump says or does is to either get in the news, or piss off the judge or DA because that is what keeps his diehard followers stirred up and what they expect him to do.

He should learn that there are times to remain quiet, but of course Trump is not capable of any kind of restraint.

Always funny how Trumpers think no rules, be they legal or simply rules of decorum, should apply to him.

---

do those "rules" only apply to R's? It sure looks like it to me.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

If this were a democrat candidate being treated like this by a judge who donates money to groups that want to defeat the other party, democrats would be at that judge's house supplying death threats.

What are the good guys doing? We are rationally talking about it. No threats, no home parade with goons, not attempts of harm what so ever. Yet we are labeled as every ist in the book and even the ists that are made up on the fly.

---

On another thread we have Dems like Robert Reich and Jeffrey Toobin claiming Clarence Thomas should recuse on the J6 Fischer review because of claims his wife was involved in pushing the "stop the steal" thing. Meanwhile they have no qualms about the judge in Trump's case having a daughter who's a consultant for Dem candidates.

Hypocrisy? You're talking about dems being hypocrites? Say it isn't so...

Quote:

---

Trying to maintain control over his court is not a leftist characteristic.

---

Denying a defendant to speak to his attorney is crooked. In this case, trying to deny Trump the right to talk to his lawyer during court under the narrative "voter intimidation" is crooked.

He's being crooked because it's Trump. That makes it leftist.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

eric76 said:

---

damiond said:

---

After questioning one juror, Judge Merchan admonished Trump: While the juror was "12 feet from your client," "your client was audibly" saying something in the direction of the juror.

"I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make this crystal clear."

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 16, 2024

another leftist hack judge
further proof of our banana republic where the republican presidential candidate cannot get a fair trial and all of this is a leftist witchhunt

---

So it is leftist to have the notion that defendants do not have the right to intimidate members of the jury?

You gotta be kidding.

---

It's leftist for a judge to accuse Trump intimidating a witness when Trump was talking to his attorney and the judge didn't hear a word Trump said to his lawyer.

---

Trying to maintain control over his court is not a leftist characteristic. While the law considers all to be equal, in court, the judge is supreme. It is completely authoritarian, a very right-wing characteristic. The courtroom has traditionally been a right-wing arena, after all. Strict adherence to the rules. Deference to the one in command. Obey the rule of law. While one can certainly disagree with judge, obedience is required. Disobedience is punished. Such is a court of law.

The use of leftist in this instance indicates a disregard of its meaning and simply an attempt to use it as an insult, an ad hominem attack. Like calling someone a MFer when you know absolutely nothing about their sexual preferences. Just like Trump, use insults as an attempt to gain a perceived advantage.

Just a reminder, Trump was not punished in any way. The judge saw a situation that needed to be stopped, so he stopped it. If Trump keeps it up, punishment is likely, however.

In a normal trial with a normal defendant, the defendant would not be allowed close enough to a juror for such an exchange to take place. Trump was given special privilege that permitted it to happen. And he abused that privilege. Typical (and expected).

---

The fact Trump is in court at all, facing a unique application of the law uniquely applied to him, is a characteristic of the way the law works under the rule of the American left.

Typical Piss Tape Prophet slavishly slobbering over the opportunity to destroy the opposition in a Stalinist show trial.

No one is denying Trump the ability to speak with his attorney. Go read what was actually said!



And before you start with the typical "TDS! DERP! TDS!" line, I have said again and again this is trial is a political hit job.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

Trying to maintain control over his court is not a leftist characteristic.

---

Denying a defendant to speak to his attorney is crooked. In this case, trying to deny Trump the right to talk to his lawyer during court under the narrative "voter intimidation" is crooked.

He's being crooked because it's Trump. That makes it leftist.

Hope that clears it up for you.

---

No, it isn't. Trump was doing some of the same crap he pulled in the E. Jean Carroll trial. He was mumbling under his breath a lot, talking in somewhat hushed tones to his attorneys but where others could hear, etc. If you need to talk to your attorney, you whisper in their ear or pass a note to them. This isn't difficult.

Quote:

---

The fact Trump is in court at all, facing a unique application of the law uniquely applied to him, is a characteristic of the way the law works under the rule of the American left.

---

Well stated.

aggiehawg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

For the attorneys on here, is it allowed for defendants to talk to jurors in this supposed manner, or in any manner, once the trial has begun?

---

He wasn't taking to the juror. He was talking to his attorney.

---

Of course he was, but this judge (like many with TDS on this board), only see through their "I hate Trump" lens.

Im Gipper said:

---

No one is denying Trump the ability to speak with his attorney. Go read what was actually said!



And before you start with the typical "TDS! DERP! TDS!" line, I have said again and again this is trial is a political hit job.

---

Nope. According to Hawg, Trump did nothing wrong and she's been following it in detail. She also has the legal knowledge and when she says Trump has the right to participate in his defense and point out issues to his attorneys, I trust her over this wacko judge that obviously has it out for Trump.

This conspiracy that Trump will always intimidate jurors is just leftist spin. Probably why this Judge made an issue of it so his media can run with it.

I posted the exact words that were said. At no time was Trump prohibited from talking to his attorneys. At least take the time to learn what actually happened.

Im Gipper said:

---

I posted the exact words that were said. At no time was Trump prohibited from talking to his attorneys. At least take the time to learn what actually happened.

---

Dude. Warning Trump to not intimidate a witness when he wasn't doing that is trying t limit what he can do with his attorneys in court.

That's just BS. Sorry because he wasn't thrown in jail in order to keep hi silenced doesn't matter. The threat was established.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

eric76 said:

---

damiond said:

---

After questioning one juror, Judge Merchan admonished Trump: While the juror was "12 feet from your client," "your client was audibly" saying something in the direction of the juror.

"I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make this crystal clear."

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 16, 2024

another leftist hack judge
further proof of our banana republic where the republican presidential candidate cannot get a fair trial and all of this is a leftist witchhunt

---

So it is leftist to have the notion that defendants do not have the right to intimidate members of the jury?

You gotta be kidding.

---

It's leftist for a judge to accuse Trump intimidating a witness when Trump was talking to his attorney and the judge didn't hear a word Trump said to his lawyer.

---

Trying to maintain control over his court is not a leftist characteristic. While the law considers all to be equal, in court, the judge is supreme. It is completely authoritarian, a very right-wing characteristic. The courtroom has traditionally been a right-wing arena, after all. Strict adherence to the rules. Deference to the one in command. Obey the rule of law. While one can certainly disagree with judge, obedience is required. Disobedience is punished. Such is a court of law.

The use of leftist in this instance indicates a disregard of its meaning and simply an attempt to use it as an insult, an ad hominem attack. Like calling someone a MFer when you know absolutely nothing about their sexual preferences. Just like Trump, use insults as an attempt to gain a perceived advantage.

Just a reminder, Trump was not punished in any way. The judge saw a situation that needed to be stopped, so he stopped it. If Trump keeps it up, punishment is likely, however.

In a normal trial with a normal defendant, the defendant would not be allowed close enough to a juror for such an exchange to take place. Trump was given special privilege that permitted it to happen. And he abused that privilege. Typical (and expected).

---

Herr Freisler agrees with you.

Im Gipper said:

---

I posted the exact words that were said. At no time was Trump prohibited from talking to his attorneys. At least take the time to learn what actually happened.

---

So you have the context of being in the courtroom when it happened and witnessed it?

bobbranco said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

eric76 said:

---

damiond said:

---

After questioning one juror, Judge Merchan admonished Trump: While the juror was "12 feet from your client," "your client was audibly" saying something in the direction of the juror.

"I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make this crystal clear."

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 16, 2024

another leftist hack judge
further proof of our banana republic where the republican presidential candidate cannot get a fair trial and all of this is a leftist witchhunt

---

So it is leftist to have the notion that defendants do not have the right to intimidate members of the jury?

You gotta be kidding.

---

It's leftist for a judge to accuse Trump intimidating a witness when Trump was talking to his attorney and the judge didn't hear a word Trump said to his lawyer.

---

Trying to maintain control over his court is not a leftist characteristic. While the law considers all to be equal, in court, the judge is supreme. It is completely authoritarian, a very right-wing characteristic. The courtroom has traditionally been a right-wing arena, after all. Strict adherence to the rules. Deference to the one in command. Obey the rule of law. While one can certainly disagree with judge, obedience is required. Disobedience is punished. Such is a court of law.

The use of leftist in this instance indicates a disregard of its meaning and simply an attempt to use it as an insult, an ad hominem attack. Like calling someone a MFer when you know absolutely nothing about their sexual preferences. Just like Trump, use insults as an attempt to gain a perceived advantage.

Just a reminder, Trump was not punished in any way. The judge saw a situation that needed to be stopped, so he stopped it. If Trump keeps it up, punishment is likely, however.

In a normal trial with a normal defendant, the defendant would not be allowed close enough to a juror for such an exchange to take place. Trump was given special privilege that permitted it to happen. And he abused that privilege. Typical (and expected).

---

Herr Freisler agrees with you.

---

Yep.

But somehow, in their devotion of absolutism, all crimes will be declared the fault of Trump, the GOP, and even Forum 16.

Trump today.

Perhaps Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan or anyone else who steps out of line to question the Scranton Stalinist later.

Down the road, they set their sights on WatchOle and the folks who dare post against Democrats in the future.

With a group of people who consider Hamas, the Taliban and Iran allies, should it come as any surprise they consider Americans in opposition to their policies as enemies to be prosecuted, incarcerated and silenced?

agwrestler said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Everything Trump says or does is to either get in the news, or piss off the judge or DA because that is what keeps his diehard followers stirred up and what they expect him to do.

He should learn that there are times to remain quiet, but of course Trump is not capable of any kind of restraint.

Always funny how Trumpers think no rules, be they legal or simply rules of decorum, should apply to him.

---

do those "rules" only apply to R's? It sure looks like it to me.

---

Can you find me a list of "D"s who are in court and have been posting online a bunch of **** about the judge's family and court officials, etc, and who are otherwise trying to make a mockery of the proceedings?

Anonymous Source said:

---

agwrestler said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Everything Trump says or does is to either get in the news, or piss off the judge or DA because that is what keeps his diehard followers stirred up and what they expect him to do.

He should learn that there are times to remain quiet, but of course Trump is not capable of any kind of restraint.

Always funny how Trumpers think no rules, be they legal or simply rules of decorum, should apply to him.

---

do those "rules" only apply to R's? It sure looks like it to me.

---

Can you find me a list of "D"s who are in court and have been posting online a bunch of **** about the judge's family and court officials, etc, and who are otherwise trying to make a mockery of the proceedings?

---

Trump has broken so many rules and norms in this regard. ANY other defendant would get absolutely nailed for doing a fraction of what he's done, but Trump gets special treatment. But anytime he is admonished or gets any consequence for his consistent misbehavior, he whines and plays victim and his supporters do the same.

Dude is a spoiled brat who's never faced a single consequence in his life, so of course he cries when it finally happens to him

Nothing happened to Trump, nothing will happen. Sorry about that.

Quote:

---

---

When we show up at his house threatening his family like the SCOTUS judge, I will post how I am against it and those protesting should be arrested.

Also, let's hear the threats. "You are a POS." and that would be true.

eric76 said:

---

Regarding the jurors, I have always heard that lawyers are almost never chosen as jurors.

I have heard of a few exceptions including one lawyer who also had a medical degree (I don't remember the case).

Of the seven jurors so far on this case, it is reported that two are lawyers!

Can that be interpreted to be a big factor in the likely outcome of the trial?

---

There's an article on just this subject at https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/trump-trial-jury-lawyers-00152839

It argues that having the two lawyers on the jury might be a benefit to Trump since Trump's lawyers are apparently likely to base their defense on legal technicalities.

From the article:

Quote:

---

"They're not emotional thinkers," said Galina Davidoff, a Chicago-based trial consultant. "The profession requires them to do analysis, and emotional thinkers get more easily swayed by the side that goes first, that tells a good story."

---

That reminds me of a movie back in the late 80s/early 90s about the Kennedy assassination. After seeing the movie, one co-worker of mine vociferously argued that she was an expert on the Kennedy assassination precisely because she had seen the movie.

Quote:

---

"I'm sure the team is going to have a story to tell in defense of Donald Trump," said Betty Dunkum, a Florida-based trial consultant. "But if the story is going to involve a lot of technical issues, and possibly legal issues involving the jury instructions and things like that, then you might want someone who's going to take a more highly technical view of the case."

...

"I typically don't leave lawyers on a panel unless I'm one thousand percent confident that they would lean toward my client, because they will have such a strong leadership position in a jury," Dunkum said.

---