I would say you need to have a certain amount of karma in this world to be able to end up inside a whale! I would characterise Chris Wallace as lower than pig shit, lol
AND that is a WHOLE LOTTA WHALE SHIT...MW ALWAYS made me want to put a bullet through the tv...and that attitude AND belief has NOT changed one iota...
Another YouTube video of a video where the poster adds their face off to the side with no intelligent commentary or even humorous dialogue. Half the videos I find online lately have some random black mug taking up part of the screen. Am I the only one who finds this trend obnoxious?
I know fren, I absolutely hate this as well. Unfortunately, I just cant find one straight link to just the clip on youtube. There was a video linked to a CNN article but it omitted some of the key stuff she said. This was the least intrusive link I could fine, and I even put in time stamp to skip over his initial prologue!
Wallace thinks Trump 'manipulated' the justice system by filing motions that anybody else would in the course of their defense, not to mention the judge ushering the case along as fast as possible which is manipulating in itself.
Yet Bragg isn't manipulating the presidential election by waiting to bring these nonsense charges so the trial would fall in the months before the election.
Chris is just as corrupt as his dad, Mike. These people are the Mockingbird Media. They have been there for more than fifty years telling the same lies against anyone that opposed the cabal's agenda.
In the full video, he asks her about Trump in the end. She says he is a great businessman, was great on apprenctice but should never have been a politican.
This is pretty tame stuff coming from someone like Judy who is ultraliberal. But this is the only way other liberals will listen to her and take it seriously.
He asked a general question about the judicial system, and she answered something specific about Manhattan. I am genuinely interested in how she would answer the actual question because it's brought up all the time.
It was not a general question. He was referring to specifically Trump's motions in various cases that, he claimed, pushed those cases to beyond elections.
The question was related specifically to Trump's case, but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
People who can afford lawyer fees can game the system when it suits them, but I do struggle to think of another circumstance where it could actually be of use .
I would have liked to hear her view on it, given her experience in the courtroom. And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
There is a lot to unpack in your comment I will try my best and see if I can do justice to this.
but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
The answer Judy gave makes exactly this point. She completely ignores Trump's motions and directs her vitriol on the very same thing thats being done - but against him, not by him. I think this is a powerful statement. It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
Here I have to ask you directly. Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system? Keep in mind that his motions are exposing deep corruption within DOJ, the collusion of the DA/prosecutor, the illegality of special counsel, the deeply compromised judges etc.
If you want an example, I would say the use of two tiered legal system where one side has unlimited budget and the other side will have to capitulate no matter what unless you agree to their demands to do what they want you to do.
In this case, would be for Trump to not run for president or to run as a controlled candidate.
Do you really think filing motions is wrong, even if lets say you "know it will fail" as long as you are the one paying for them, and your opponent is the most powerful legal entity in the world?
Do you think wanting to delay the cases to after the elections is wrong? Using whatever legal means (assuming thats what Trump was supposedly doing - but I think in reality he wasn't) including filing motions?
Do you really think filing motions is the biggest problem in the judicial system?
(Again I am not talking about two people, but DOJ vs people)
And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
She makes it clear that she is not a Trump supporter, and she also makes it clear that this is a travesty of justice against Trump. So I think the answer is very clear.
I'll try to address your questions but I'm no legal mind which is why I wanted her view on it.
It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
I would have liked a more explicit response, it felt more like political deflection tbh.
Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system?
There were some which I understood to be just to delay. Like repeatedly asking the judge to recuse himself while not offering additional reasons on subsequent requests. What is "delay" to me could be "trying to bring attention to a corrupt judge" to another, I understand that. I lean towards the former as the greater motivator.
I don't know enough about the legal system to answer most of the other questions, for example whether it's ethical/moral to delay the cases until after the election. Certainly it's not illegal, but one point often made is how much it costs taxpayers to extend it. Yes I know the initial cost of them even happening is enormous but we're talking about the use of employing delay tactics.
I believe Trump could run for president on his own terms while pointing out the hypocrisy of being singled out for ticky tacky charges while they say "no one is above the law". There's no need for him to capitulate and become a controlled candidate.
In my view he's trying to stay more favorable to independent voters who could be swayed by headlines.
In the New York lawsuit, he was indicted on March 2023 and the trial began on April 15, 2024 and concluded on May 30, 2024 - 14 months later.
(Compare this to Ghislane Maxwell, who was indicted in July 2020 and the trail finished December 2021 - 17 months later)
The District of Columbia trial was put on hold in February 2024 while waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution.
The Georgia trial is paused while the Georgia Court of Appeals decides whether to disqualify Fani Willis
The Florida trial has been indefinitely postponed, while Judge Cannon has been declassifying tons of documents that expose the collusion between the Biden WH, DOJ, Jack Smith, National Archives etc.
Which of these cases do you believe possibly suffers from unnecessary motions purely to delay the cases beyond the election date?
And finally able to get to it! I'm glad to go through the exercise because if challenged on something that I took for granted (that Trump wants to delay the trials until after the election), I want to have more background on motivations.
Interacting with mods in the past has lead to my being banned, and I realize I have a lengthy "rap sheet", but you do come across as one of the more even-tempered mods so I'll allow myself to speak plainly.
For trials across the board, there were many calls for a mistrial (see trials for Cannon, Kaplan, Merchan, Engorgon). Below is one example, from the recent NY trial. Per the bolded part, I do concede that this tactic isn't exclusive to Trump's strategy. It sounds like the motion (for a mistrial) could also be used a set-up for a later appeal; again I'm not a law-head and this is the kind of thing I'd like cleared up by someone who is.
Trump’s lawyers objected to the testimony and requested a mistrial, saying the lurid details Daniels disclosed had prejudiced jurors against defendants. Judge Juan Merchan rejected that request, but still conceded jurors had heard information they should not have.
While Trump is likely to use the episode in any potential appeal, experts doubted whether he would succeed.
“Skirmishes like this happen all the time, and defense attorneys call for mistrials in many, if not most, criminal trials. I don’t think this was even close to cause for a mistrial and don’t think it would end up being a major issue on appeal,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who now teaches at New York Law School.
And I found some details about the motion I alluded to earlier (re-submission without adding anything new):
The former president is also attempting again to force Merchan’s recusal from the case, citing his adult daughter’s professional activities for Democrats. But under New York law, a judge is generally not conflicted out by the activities of his adult children unless they had a substantial interest in the proceedings, like being a witness or party in the case. (And as any parent can tell you, the idea that a child’s politics automatically reflect the parent’s is ludicrous.) The facts and the law remain materially unchanged from when Merchan denied Trump’s first recusal request. The judge based his ruling on an opinion from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which found “nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.” Nothing of any consequence has changed since then, so this motion too is futile.
I couldn't get a good read on the presidential immunity motions. The lower court was quick to dismiss it but it's been sitting with the SCOTUS for so long. Guess we'll find out Monday whether it had merit!
I like his show.
They as a community need to move away from the manufactured satanic rap / hood culture they have been brainwashed to believe is who they are as a people.
The only way is core family values.
Remove all gibs and the problem will solve itself.
As long as unmarried/ unemployed single women are supported by those who work, the system as it is will stumble along until the inevitable glorious conclusion.
I would say you need to have a certain amount of karma in this world to be able to end up inside a whale! I would characterise Chris Wallace as lower than pig shit, lol
AND that is a WHOLE LOTTA WHALE SHIT...MW ALWAYS made me want to put a bullet through the tv...and that attitude AND belief has NOT changed one iota...
He speaks like he has a mouth of shit
Another YouTube video of a video where the poster adds their face off to the side with no intelligent commentary or even humorous dialogue. Half the videos I find online lately have some random black mug taking up part of the screen. Am I the only one who finds this trend obnoxious?
I know fren, I absolutely hate this as well. Unfortunately, I just cant find one straight link to just the clip on youtube. There was a video linked to a CNN article but it omitted some of the key stuff she said. This was the least intrusive link I could fine, and I even put in time stamp to skip over his initial prologue!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc6Lz5IXGrs
wasnt that hard.
You are not alone.
You are not alone.
I really enjoyed the way she annunciated "Own. Personal. Self-aggrandisement".
Awesome.
Wallace thinks Trump 'manipulated' the justice system by filing motions that anybody else would in the course of their defense, not to mention the judge ushering the case along as fast as possible which is manipulating in itself.
Yet Bragg isn't manipulating the presidential election by waiting to bring these nonsense charges so the trial would fall in the months before the election.
Quite the propagandist.
Chris is just as corrupt as his dad, Mike. These people are the Mockingbird Media. They have been there for more than fifty years telling the same lies against anyone that opposed the cabal's agenda.
She didn’t mention Trump. That was a great point.
In the full video, he asks her about Trump in the end. She says he is a great businessman, was great on apprenctice but should never have been a politican.
This is pretty tame stuff coming from someone like Judy who is ultraliberal. But this is the only way other liberals will listen to her and take it seriously.
Trump is not a politician. He's a true, genuine leader and public servant.
Something so rarely seen that people actually can't actually understand him or what he does. So they dismiss him.
Those of us who get it, we love him for it.
President Trump isn't a politician though and that is why he is loved.
Judge Judy is not a DJT lover.
Nope she is not. Thats what makes this even more notable, because this can reach the Trump haters.
He asked a general question about the judicial system, and she answered something specific about Manhattan. I am genuinely interested in how she would answer the actual question because it's brought up all the time.
It was not a general question. He was referring to specifically Trump's motions in various cases that, he claimed, pushed those cases to beyond elections.
The question was related specifically to Trump's case, but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
People who can afford lawyer fees can game the system when it suits them, but I do struggle to think of another circumstance where it could actually be of use .
I would have liked to hear her view on it, given her experience in the courtroom. And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
There is a lot to unpack in your comment I will try my best and see if I can do justice to this.
The answer Judy gave makes exactly this point. She completely ignores Trump's motions and directs her vitriol on the very same thing thats being done - but against him, not by him. I think this is a powerful statement. It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
Here I have to ask you directly. Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system? Keep in mind that his motions are exposing deep corruption within DOJ, the collusion of the DA/prosecutor, the illegality of special counsel, the deeply compromised judges etc.
If you want an example, I would say the use of two tiered legal system where one side has unlimited budget and the other side will have to capitulate no matter what unless you agree to their demands to do what they want you to do.
In this case, would be for Trump to not run for president or to run as a controlled candidate.
Do you really think filing motions is wrong, even if lets say you "know it will fail" as long as you are the one paying for them, and your opponent is the most powerful legal entity in the world?
Do you think wanting to delay the cases to after the elections is wrong? Using whatever legal means (assuming thats what Trump was supposedly doing - but I think in reality he wasn't) including filing motions?
Do you really think filing motions is the biggest problem in the judicial system?
(Again I am not talking about two people, but DOJ vs people)
She makes it clear that she is not a Trump supporter, and she also makes it clear that this is a travesty of justice against Trump. So I think the answer is very clear.
I'll try to address your questions but I'm no legal mind which is why I wanted her view on it.
I would have liked a more explicit response, it felt more like political deflection tbh.
There were some which I understood to be just to delay. Like repeatedly asking the judge to recuse himself while not offering additional reasons on subsequent requests. What is "delay" to me could be "trying to bring attention to a corrupt judge" to another, I understand that. I lean towards the former as the greater motivator.
I don't know enough about the legal system to answer most of the other questions, for example whether it's ethical/moral to delay the cases until after the election. Certainly it's not illegal, but one point often made is how much it costs taxpayers to extend it. Yes I know the initial cost of them even happening is enormous but we're talking about the use of employing delay tactics.
I believe Trump could run for president on his own terms while pointing out the hypocrisy of being singled out for ticky tacky charges while they say "no one is above the law". There's no need for him to capitulate and become a controlled candidate.
In my view he's trying to stay more favorable to independent voters who could be swayed by headlines.
In the New York lawsuit, he was indicted on March 2023 and the trial began on April 15, 2024 and concluded on May 30, 2024 - 14 months later.
(Compare this to Ghislane Maxwell, who was indicted in July 2020 and the trail finished December 2021 - 17 months later)
The District of Columbia trial was put on hold in February 2024 while waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution.
The Georgia trial is paused while the Georgia Court of Appeals decides whether to disqualify Fani Willis
The Florida trial has been indefinitely postponed, while Judge Cannon has been declassifying tons of documents that expose the collusion between the Biden WH, DOJ, Jack Smith, National Archives etc.
Which of these cases do you believe possibly suffers from unnecessary motions purely to delay the cases beyond the election date?
I'm out and about but I will get back to this when I can sit at my desktop and dig
I am eagerly waiting to hear from you ...
And finally able to get to it! I'm glad to go through the exercise because if challenged on something that I took for granted (that Trump wants to delay the trials until after the election), I want to have more background on motivations.
Interacting with mods in the past has lead to my being banned, and I realize I have a lengthy "rap sheet", but you do come across as one of the more even-tempered mods so I'll allow myself to speak plainly.
For trials across the board, there were many calls for a mistrial (see trials for Cannon, Kaplan, Merchan, Engorgon). Below is one example, from the recent NY trial. Per the bolded part, I do concede that this tactic isn't exclusive to Trump's strategy. It sounds like the motion (for a mistrial) could also be used a set-up for a later appeal; again I'm not a law-head and this is the kind of thing I'd like cleared up by someone who is.
And I found some details about the motion I alluded to earlier (re-submission without adding anything new):
I couldn't get a good read on the presidential immunity motions. The lower court was quick to dismiss it but it's been sitting with the SCOTUS for so long. Guess we'll find out Monday whether it had merit!
I like his show. They as a community need to move away from the manufactured satanic rap / hood culture they have been brainwashed to believe is who they are as a people.
The only way is core family values.
Remove all gibs and the problem will solve itself.
As long as unmarried/ unemployed single women are supported by those who work, the system as it is will stumble along until the inevitable glorious conclusion.
Accelerate.
Her name isn't in the flight logs.
There will be no place they can safely walk the streets, and/or hide....
Let me know when you come up with a non-YT video of this.
Chris Wallace should kill himself.