Phx-Suns.Net

Kryptonic wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2024 3:58 pm

How’d the polls work out last time? lol

What do you think the polls said in 2020 just prior to the election?

So the guy that was "loyal" and taking bullets for Trump was stealing from Trump at the same time? Ok

In2ition wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2024 9:12 am

Kryptonic wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2024 3:58 pm

How’d the polls work out last time? lol

What do you think the polls said in 2020 just prior to the election?

It's not what I think it's what I know.... The polls were all saying Trump was going to win. I don't know what you're getting at. It's pretty easy to research and see.

Kryptonic wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2024 10:47 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2024 9:12 am

Kryptonic wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2024 3:58 pm

How’d the polls work out last time? lol

What do you think the polls said in 2020 just prior to the election?

It's not what I think it's what I know.... The polls were all saying Trump was going to win. I don't know what you're getting at. It's pretty easy to research and see.

Is this what you know?
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/202 ... e-polling/

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/1 ... ong-500050

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... /national/

https://www.270towin.com/2020-polls-biden-trump/

Wow.





With Cohen imploding on the stand and Lib Media lawyers even saying there isn't evidence to convict. That being said, Trump will be convicted and sentenced before May ends. Don't be shocked when it happens.

It's interesting to see what your media says about this trial. That's not at all what I am reading. I think DJT is in trouble.

I said before the trial that it was already decided, even if the prosecution hadn't proved that he did the crime that he's being tried for.

This seems like a comment that could get him in trouble.

You would think this is supposed to be a fair trial. Why am I not surprised?

The judge explained his reasoning for that.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... b0c83ccd06

Judge Juan Merchan said that allowing a Federal Election Commission (FEC) expert to testify on the additional subjects that Donald Trump's lawyers are seeking would lead to a "battle of the experts," which would "only confuse and not assist" the jury.

"The jury would hear legal instructions from three different people. As Mr. Bove eluded to there is no question this would result in a battle of the experts and would only serve to confuse and not assist he jury," the judge said.
Merchan also cited Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan’s ruling barring this same expert from testifying to similar topics at the Sam Bankman-Fried trial.

"I direct you back to page three of my decision," Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expenditure.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... p-on-trial

Trump’s team wanted to call an expert witness, Brad Smith, to discuss campaign finance law, but Merchan ruled that Smith wouldn’t be allowed on the stand because, “an expert is not permitted to present or interpret the law” and he didn’t see any way Smith could testify while avoiding that topic. He pointed out that Smith hadn’t been allowed to testify in crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial for the same reason.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2024 12:50 pm

Sure, you think that, but it doesn't change the fact that continues to climb in the polls after each indictment. You don't want him to win, yet continue to do things to help him win.

The FBI didn't want to indict Hillary, because it was in an election season, and didn't want it to look like election interference. All norms have been desolved with this lawfare, as no one has done that before to their political opponents. At least not in the US. It happens all the time in Banana Republics, where the authoritarian wants to stay in power by all means.

The FBI didn't want to indict Hillary, because it was in an election season.

Show me that quote from the FBI. That is you and I’m sure the rest of Maga just saying that. Saying shit over and over doesn’t make it true.

Him being up or down in the polls has absolutely no bearing on what I think of Trump.

No one is above the law. Trump and his Maga friends think he is. Bringing all the political power you can muster to attack the prosecution isn’t what the rest of America gets when it is accused of crimes.

Once again Racheal Maddow nailed it. When Hitlers propaganda guy in the US was charged in the IS, he got all kinds of Washington politicians to show up at the trial supporting him. They got the first prosecutor fired. A new prosecutor was named and when he brought the case to court he was fired. All those Senators were on the Nazi payroll and couldn’t let that get out. They won. Hitler lost. Word got out anyway and they were all voted out.

Today we have all the Maga politicians showing up to Trumps trial. They have been feverishly trying to get all the judges and prosecutors in Trumps cases fired. Except for the Florida one where they want the prosecutors fired but, the judge will probably sit at Trumps table instead of the bench of it ever even goes to trial.

Nodack wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2024 9:53 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2024 12:50 pm

Sure, you think that, but it doesn't change the fact that continues to climb in the polls after each indictment. You don't want him to win, yet continue to do things to help him win.

The FBI didn't want to indict Hillary, because it was in an election season, and didn't want it to look like election interference. All norms have been desolved with this lawfare, as no one has done that before to their political opponents. At least not in the US. It happens all the time in Banana Republics, where the authoritarian wants to stay in power by all means.

The FBI didn't want to indict Hillary, because it was in an election season.

Show me that quote from the FBI. That is you and I’m sure the rest of Maga just saying that. Saying shit over and over doesn’t make it true.

No one is above the law. Trump and his Maga friends think he is. Bringing all the political power you can muster to attack the prosecution isn’t what the rest of America gets when it is accused of crimes.

Once again Racheal Maddow nailed it. When Hitlers propaganda guy in the US was charged in the IS, he got all kinds of Washington politicians to show up at the trial supporting him. They got the first prosecutor fired. A new prosecutor was named and when he brought the case to court he was fired. All those Senators were on the Nazi payroll and couldn’t let that get out. They won. Hitler lost. Word got out anyway and they were all voted out.

Today we have all the Maga politicians showing up to Trumps trial. They have been feverishly trying to get all the judges and prosecutors in Trumps cases fired. Except for the Florida one where they want the prosecutors fired but, the judge will probably sit at Trumps table instead of the bench of it ever even goes to trial.

You can whine about Hillary all you want. But Hillary was very thoroughly investigated, and she testified before Congress for 11 hours. No crimes were found. Sorry Charlie.

Comey listed the crimes they found. They just decided not to pursue charges, whereas Biden went out of his way to collaborate with DOJ agencies to come up with novel crimes that have never been pursued before, going after his political opponent.

As expected, Trump opts not to take the stand in his hush money trial.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 7:47 am

Comey listed the crimes they found. They just decided not to pursue charges, whereas Biden went out of his way to collaborate with DOJ agencies to come up with novel crimes that have never been pursued before, going after his political opponent.

“To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

You are once again making up the Biden parts. It’s ok, everyone in Magaland does it.

Nodack wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 9:45 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 7:47 am

Comey listed the crimes they found. They just decided not to pursue charges, whereas Biden went out of his way to collaborate with DOJ agencies to come up with novel crimes that have never been pursued before, going after his political opponent.

“To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

You are once again making up the Biden parts. It’s ok, everyone in Magaland does it.

They all feed off each other and perpetuate the untruths.

Say it enough and it becomes truth.

You think that if Trump did half of what Hillary did here, there would be no charges brought? You would bend over backwards to justify it.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 10:06 am

You think that if Trump did half of what Hillary did here, there would be no charges brought? You would bend over backwards to justify it.

I've got news for you. Trump did WAY more than "Half of what Hillary did." He's on trial for some of it. He will likely be convicted for some of it. Which is the right outcome. Commit lots of crimes, face consequences.