I like the source you gave because it was an interview with professor Goodman on Amicus that spurred my post. It's a very informative pod episode, but he really came off as too pollyannish regarding the trial, as almost a cathartic moment for him and others like him when the verdict was read. He was like crying on the pod. Look, I'm on the Trump is a bad for democracy boat and shouldn't be president, but sometimes it seems that you get too far invested into that, you lose perspective. But good for his passion. Now on to the substance. Your post reflects a tweet of Goodman's replying to Honig's article. And Honig responded too. https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/ms...cnns-elie-honig-accuse-him-of-spreading-lies/ I'm not a NY law professor and I'm not a federal prosecutor, but I can read. I think all sides have legit points, and in scouring the replies to those articles, what I've concluded is that there are some things that are allowed in NY courts that are not allowed in federal courts. At best, this prosecution is a novel stretching of the law beyond what was intended by the law. By doing that stretching, it is possible (this is my position) that the US Constitution was violated (due process, supremacy clause, certain evidentiary standards) and thus this would be overturned. Going back to my first point about Goodman - he literally said he can't see any reason at all why the Supreme Court would overturn this, that Marchan bent over backwards to appease Trump, and that jail time will happen (pending appeal). I think this Goodman guy got lost in the weeds. Anyhow, I don't mind if Trump loses appeals and serves time here. God knows he deserves a lot of prison for all the other crap, but that other crap is dragging on. By the way, I think Biden deserves prison time too for the keeping classified docs, but Trump deserves 10x more. The point is, this prosecution is legally strained at best and constitutionally shaky, imo. It shouldn't have been the things that make Trump a felon. The feds didn't even go after Trump for the underlying predicate crime that NY is using to create the felony. But I have no sympathy for him - he didn't even put up a defense. But SCOTUS views money as speech and protects it more over the last couple of decades than it has prior when it comes to campaigns and elections. So, I'll just wait and see. Good case study though, especially for the legal nerds out there. And here another strong substantive response to Goodman's claim:
Yeah, the double standard is gross. You're either for neutrality or not. You're either for free association rights or not. I'm glad Bill Burr gave the double birds a few months ago.
I still think the Felon on a Melon billboards would be great for summer. Put them up on I-45 from Houston to Galveston, down I-10 from New Orleans to Pensacola, and on the roads leading to Disney World, The Grand Canyon, and Disneyland. Great souvenir photos. Then, in Times Square, and near New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC, and Chicago train, bus, and subway stations. Maybe up the East Coast, from Jacksonville to Washington D.C.
What a tell. Would you declassify the 911 files? Donald says "yes". Would you declassify the JFK files? Donald says "yes". Would you declassify the Epstein files? Donald says "those files are faked and rigged".
Back before hush money, when the rich scumbags like Trump put fear into the life of a 13 year old girl if she didn't keep her lips zipped. According to the filings, “Johnson” was an aspiring model in 1994 when, after a string of unsuccessful meetings with agencies in New York City, she was at a Port Authority bus terminal getting ready to make her cross-country trip back home. Instead, a woman told Johnson how she could make money and modeling connections attending parties. It was at these parties—allegedly featuring other underage girls and wealthy guests—that Johnson says she was forced to sexually gratify the future president on four occasions, each one escalating in its described level of depravity. After their supposed final encounter, in which Johnson claimed she begged Trump to no avail to wear a condom, the complaint states, “Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at” the plaintiff and suggested she get an abortion. The bombshell claims never gained as much traction as other Trump misconduct allegations, for several reasons. Johnson’s initial lawsuit, filed without an attorney, included a hinky phone number and unverifiable mailing address, and was swiftly dismissed in the Central District of California. Johnson abruptly withdrew her second lawsuit and canceled a press conference days before the election, citing fears for her safety. https://sacramento.newsreview.com/2019/10/21/wait-katie-johnson-actually-exists/
we all know Trump would be all over those Epstein files…Trump probably had a luxury suite on Epstein’s island
If Trump confessed to banging countless 14 year old girls, he would lose zero MAGA votes and his voters would be 30% more likely to vote for him.
Honig responded, and Goodman replied to this response. Honig was factually wrong (on that one point), and the overall point is that the defense did know. It was not unknown until the closing statement. McLaughlin's claim that it wasn't in the indictment wasn't what Honig claimed nor what Goodman responded to, so he's either confused and mixing things up or doing it on purpose. Anyhow, I wish someone other than McLaughlin had made the counterpoints—I just don't respect what he said based on his posting history. I don't watch Goodman's podcast or read much of his tweets. I do read Just Security, though. This was absolutely a novel approach. This is why, ignoring that's it's a former POTUS case, it probably has a good chance of being reviewed by the Supreme Court, and why I don't think anyone can say for sure whether it will stand or not. So, I absolutely do not agree that there couldn't be a reason, particularly a technical reason for the Court to overturn. The instruction provided by the Judge might be the strongest area for a successful appeal, (cause it's confusing and actually didn't make sense to me, lol). (Non-lawyer playing around here )
Have you seen the Congressman John Rose's 6 year old son who has been floating around on TV this week? "Rose and his wife Chelsea (née Doss) married in January 2011.At the time, he was 45 and she was 21."
and they met when she was still in high school…old ass man asking his date if he can take her to prom
