Liberal Forum

roadkill » 03 Oct 2023, 6:33 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 6:33 pm

Same place Obama got his NPP...

He's down with OPD...
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Oct 2023, 6:24 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 6:24 pm

And you got your law degree where?

https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/trumps-st ... explained/
 

maineman » 03 Oct 2023, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 6:43 pm

https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/trumps-st ... explained/

From your article. The setup:

The Manhattan judge deciding the $250 million civil fraud case against Donald Trump on Tuesday clarified comments he made about the statute of limitations that the former president had hailed as a win.

And the punchline:

While claims relating to alleged conduct from before 2014 can’t come into the case, Engoron set the record straight Tuesday — saying that evidence from before that time could still be used to help prove newer claims.

So, according to your link, Trump was correct. The statute of limitations does apply, as the appeals court ruled in July. 

The "clarification" sustained Trump's claim. The only one calling it a "clarification," and "setting the record straight," was the NY Post (and likely many others amongst the Talkeratti). 

The "clarification" merely sets evidentiary rules for the trial, and does not confute a word trump said, as I read it. Therefore, it manifestly does not "set the record straight," as it comments not a whit on trump's claims. 

And I got my law degree from the University of Hard Knocks in Knocksville, TN. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Oct 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 6:53 pm

From your article. The setup:

The Manhattan judge deciding the $250 million civil fraud case against Donald Trump on Tuesday clarified comments he made about the statute of limitations that the former president had hailed as a win.

And the punchline:

While claims relating to alleged conduct from before 2014 can’t come into the case, Engoron set the record straight Tuesday — saying that evidence from before that time could still be used to help prove newer claims.

So, according to your link, Trump was correct. The statute of limitations does apply, as the appeals court ruled in July. 

The "clarification" sustained Trump's claim. The only one calling it a "clarification," and "setting the record straight," was the NY Post (and likely many others amongst the Talkeratti). 

The "clarification" merely sets evidentiary rules for the trial, and does not confute a word trump said, as I read it. Therefore, it manifestly does not "set the record straight," as it comments not a whit on trump's claims. 

And I got my law degree from the University of Hard Knocks in Knocksville, TN.

but, in fact, conduct before 2014 can indeed come into the case, not as a charge, but as evidence of other charges.  And, my guess is, that those behaviors, even though uncharged, will simply provide a longer span of time, looking back, where Trump routinely used fraud to advance his business interests.  It was his M.O.

maineman » 03 Oct 2023, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 7:02 pm

but, in fact, conduct before 2014 can indeed come into the case, not as a charge,

Exactly. 

Which confuted not a word of trump's narrative - correct?

It shuts down precisely those elements of the CAUSE that trump claimed it shut down. 
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Oct 2023, 7:05 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 7:05 pm

Exactly. 

Which confuted not a word of trump's narrative - correct?

It shuts down precisely those elements of the CAUSE that trump claimed it shut down.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... 12dd116740
 

maineman » 03 Oct 2023, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 7:28 pm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... 12dd116740

This is yet another case of the source using colorful language and ascribing it to the judge - but not QUOTING the judge. 

Here:

At trial on Monday, Engoron suggested witness testimony that concerned documents from 2011 was a “waste of time” if the AG’s office can’t “relate” those discussions “to something that happened later,” which Trump claimed meant that nothing from 2011 could be admissible in court—meaning a bunch of evidence would be thrown out.

Neither of us has any idea what the AG can relate to current events. Neither we nor the source has that information. 

They say that Engoron "suggested" witness testimony that concerned documents from 2011 was a “waste of time” if the AG’s office can’t “relate” those discussions “to something that happened later,”

Judges make rulings, not suggestions. So when it mitigates in trump's favor, they use inaccurate language. ANd what do they do to make the facts seem to mitigate AGAINST trump's claims?

Here:

Engoron clarified at the trial on Tuesday that Trump’s statement was untrue, the Associated Press reports,

Forbes quotes CITES a secondary source - not the judge. I suggest you click the link to the report they cite. The cite is to a hit piece, frankly. 

This is how the echo chamber works. And I will admit that I am deeply disappointed to see Forbes descending to this level of yellow journalism - but, there we have it. 

They go on:

and as he has already ruled in the case, the judge is going to allow evidence from 2011 as long as it helps prove misconduct that happened within the statute of limitations.

Which, AGAIN, confutes not a word that trump said. 

They made a claim based on others' reportage, and then they IMPLIED that Engoron's ruling disputed trump's claims - which they did not even bother to quote. 

This is not journalism. This is propaganda. Just imagine - trump lied, but the people claiming he lied do not quote a single false utterance. "You're a liar!"

"What did I lie about?"

"You lied about your lies!"

It is reminiscent of that maxwell broad getting convicted of sex-trafficking children.

To no one. No, really - to no one. She sex trafficked children to no one. And was convicted for it.

Let me be very clear what would impress me as journalism: Quoting trump saying one thing and the judge saying another. Not paraphrasing. Quoting. That is actually how journalism works. One actually BACKS the claim in the headline, rather than dancing around and using colorful phraseology to make it APPEAR the facts sustain the headline.

 

maineman » 03 Oct 2023, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 7:28 pm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... 12dd116740

And just so ya know, I have no idea how much the judge's statements confute Trump's. I am not one bit on board with a word of the OP. This thread is the first I've heard of it, and I consider the thread's author a slope-headed dimwit. Likewise, I take anything the Orange Poisoner says with a tablespoon of salt. He pretended to play the lab rat in order to trick me into risky behaviors. 

It may seem I have a dog in this fight - but I don't. I just want to see real journalism. I haven't seen that in this thread. 
 

Mrkelly » 03 Oct 2023, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 9:23 am

one mans harassment is another mans justice

not in a fair and unbiased country!  maybe in one where leftism is king.

Cannonpointer » 03 Oct 2023, 6:00 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 6:00 pm

Sending a fella to prison seems pretty hairyass to me.

You?

Fixed it for you. 
 

Vegas » 03 Oct 2023, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 8:59 am

Isn't there some clause in the US constitution that the government is not allowed to harass a private citizen, by means of courts or otherwise?

It ONLY undermines the very Constitution that America was FOUNDED on... and comes VERY close to TOTALITARIAN TYRANNY, and a POLICE STATE... 

BUT, other than THAT...

It ONLY will start to "BITE"... when they TAKE YOUR rights away from YOU, and COME AFTER YOU !!

Mrkelly » 03 Oct 2023, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 2:25 pm

tRump said "if I read it right"

can't find that information anywhere but trump

and trump said "we are not entitled to a jury, I think it's very unfair that we don't have a jury"

didn't you watch the video?

It's now been THREE DAYS since Trump came out and told AMERICA what the Judge said about the "Statute of Limitations" pertaining to Trumps courtcase... and the ONLY thing that I've seen or heard that has come out about Trump, was a "gag order" on him because he said the Judges clerk, " was Chuck Schumer's girlfriend”... which was a gag order SPECIFIC to "attacking" his staff... HA!! 

I guess if I were the clerk, and someone said I was "CHUCK SCHUMERS girlfriend", I would consider that an ATTACK... and be PISSED OFF too !!

BUT, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the "Statute of Limitations" comment... AND, based on THAT... I would say that what Trump said, was 100% TRUE !!
 

Trumpy is SUPERMAN!!!!

maineman » 03 Oct 2023, 5:22 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 5:22 pm

We WANT Trump to be the nominee.  We want your party to be the party that took away a woman's reproductive rights, the party that cannot even govern itself when it has a majority in the house, and the party whose standard bearer is a fraud, a rapist, and a convicted felon.  

You can't get to 271 with MAGA morons alone.

NO ONE took away a woman's reproductive rights...

The Supreme Court JUST gave that responsibility BACK to the States... which is where it SHOULD have been all along... per the U.S. Constitution !

 
 

Mrkelly » 03 Oct 2023, 7:14 am » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 7:14 am

we had a thread about this yesterday 

and the only proof he had (like you) is tRump saying so

got anything else?

also, tRump is not getting a jury trial because his lawyers didn’t want one

and never asked for one 

seems tRump left that part out

Can you say "Win For Trump"?
 

ConservativeWave » 04 Oct 2023, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 1:24 pm

NO ONE took away a woman's reproductive rights...

The Supreme Court JUST gave that responsibility BACK to the States... which is where it SHOULD have been all along... per the U.S. Constitution !

Your problem is, a whole lot of women see it differently than you do, and they have been showing their displeasure at the GOP and Trump for foisting Hobbes on them in a whole series of special elections and referenda.  The GOP shamelessly used Roe as a torch to ignite the passions of their anti-abortion base for decades, and now you'll get to see how that feels when YOU'RE on the other side.  Hobbes is the gift that keeps on giving.
 

maineman » 04 Oct 2023, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 2:47 pm

Your problem is, a whole lot of women see it differently than you do, and they have been showing their displeasure at the GOP and Trump for foisting Hobbes on them in a whole series of special elections and referenda.  The GOP shamelessly used Roe as a torch to ignite the passions of their anti-abortion base for decades, and now you'll get to see how that feels when YOU'RE on the other side.  Hobbes is the gift that keeps on giving.

AND, YOUR problem is that as more information comes out about the viability of a child, at shorter and shorter periods of development, and the the FACT that fetusus DO FEEL PAIN...  EVEN before birth... MORE and MORE people are coming around to the idea that ABORTION is INHUMAN !!  WHAT'S MORE... MORE and MORE... Men feel that, Women feel that, and all ETHNIC groups feel that... THAT has been a GROWING group for YEARS now... and Liberals have been TRYING to SQUELCH people from talking about it...

AND, they're LOSING !!
 

ConservativeWave » 05 Oct 2023, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2023, 12:12 pm

AND, YOUR problem is that as more information comes out about the viability of a child, at shorter and shorter periods of development, and the the FACT that fetusus DO FEEL PAIN...  EVEN before birth... MORE and MORE people are coming around to the idea that ABORTION is INHUMAN !!  WHAT'S MORE... MORE and MORE... Men feel that, Women feel that, and all ETHNIC groups feel that... THAT has been a GROWING group for YEARS now... and Liberals have been TRYING to SQUELCH people from talking about it...

AND, they're LOSING !!

cool prediction!  The polls since the Hobbes decision tell a totally different story, but hold fast to your dreams, little broomstick cowboy!  
 

maineman » 05 Oct 2023, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2023, 12:34 pm

cool prediction!  The polls since the Hobbes decision tell a totally different story, but hold fast to your dreams, little broomstick cowboy!

WHICH polls are YOU looking at EINSTEIN ?... YOU must be the 'broomstick cowboy",... WHATEVER the hell THAT is !!

THIS Gallup poll was done a couple months ago... where it finds that the following percentages of people approve of abortion, and under what conditions....

13% approve under NO conditions,
51% approve under SOME conditions'
31% approve under ALL conditions...

In a nutshell, the Hobbs decision nullified "Abortion on Demand" at the federal level... and sends it back to the states where THEY can nuance abortion in a way that their population approves... NO MORE abortion on demand at the FEDERAL level !!  SO, the Gallup poll essentially is in alignment with 64% of America !!

**** for BRAINS !!

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/ame ... rtion.aspx
 

ConservativeWave » 05 Oct 2023, 3:35 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2023, 3:35 pm

WHICH polls are YOU looking at EINSTEIN ?... YOU must be the 'broomstick cowboy",... WHATEVER the hell THAT is !!

THIS Gallup poll was done a couple months ago... where it finds that the following percentages of people approve of abortion, and under what conditions....

13% approve under NO conditions,
51% approve under SOME conditions'
31% approve under ALL conditions...

In a nutshell, the Hobbs decision nullified "Abortion on Demand" at the federal level... and sends it back to the states where THEY can nuance abortion in a way that their population approves... NO MORE abortion on demand at the FEDERAL level !!  SO, the Gallup poll essentially is in alignment with 64% of America !!

**** for BRAINS !!

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/ame ... rtion.aspx

82% approve of abortion in some form.  13% don't.

Hobbes allows states to outlaw abortion.  

82% of the people don't like that.

You can spin it all you want, but Hobbes hurt the GOP and helped the Democrats.