Progressives have been hyperbolically outraged for months that the Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon has remained on the bench for Trump’s document case in Florida.
Two systems of justice, two sets of rules, two sets of standards, all of which are selectively applied (or not) for political purposes. We The People witness it every day.
Experience and recent history combined with skepticism tells me that nothing will happen to Hunter Biden. Back in 2012, I was following the John Edwards corruption case pretty closely. Because he was a Democrat, the case wasn't getting very much media coverage, but it was enough that you could keep track. He faced six felony charges and was looking at a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.... he was found not guilty on one count, and guilty on the other five.... but then the judge immediately declared mistrials on all the guilty counts, throwing the whole thing out of court. Shortly afterwards, the Justice Department said they were dropping all charges and wouldn't pursue it anymore. Edwards walked away smirking. When this thing went to court and guilty rulings came down, I actually did believe that he would be held accountable. But he wasn't. It was just like the same way when Hillary was allowed to get off scot-free, despite the announcement that she actually was guilty (buuut, she didn't mean to do it!). After the Edwards fiasco, I lost all faith in our legal system. After the Hillary case, Biden being declared too incompetent to stand trial, and what they did to Trump... it became crystal clear that there was a 2-tier justice system in America.
Particularly as concerns the case under which Donald Trump was convicted, any unfairness there is matched by the conservatives on the Supreme Court unfairly putting the brakes on the case against Trump for his role (if any) in the events of January 6th. Let me be clear: I do not mean to point the finger of blame in either direction, as we could go on for some time citing instances of hypocricy on both sides. My point is simply that hypocricy and unfairness in dealing with the other side have become the orders of the day.
They hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. They don't even see it as hypocrisy. The ends justify the means. I will vote for Trump and I hope he destroys Biden. I can't wait to see which foreign power stole the election this time. Pass the popcorn while I reload please.
Is it not hypocritical to deny even a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court nominee on the grounds that the vacancy occurred too close to the election, but then turn around a confirm a Trump nominee to fill a vacancy that occurred even closer to an election?
And let us not forget which side first introduced the notion of locking up the other side's presidential nominee.
Is it not hypocritical to change the rules midstream so you can get your judicial nominees through even though, by the rules, the other side is blocking them? Nope. It's politics. Welcome to both sides playing the same game. You were fine as long as your side was winning but the other side wasn't playing by your rules. They are now and you don't like it. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't get any moral high ground. And if I've misread you and you aren't supporting the democrats, well, you appear to be. If so, you are late to the realization that the GOP is now politicing along the same lines. The dems have cross the Rubicon, to use Erick's lingo, with the witch hunt and persecution of Donald Trump. They will now reap what they have sown. I'm not sure how we come back from this, but they get to see how it feels now.
Christie is NOT a Republican. He's not really even a RINO. He's a Christie meaning he'll do or say whatever he thinks he has to to advance Chris Christie. I despise him as he has no principles. I respect a progressive flying the rainbow mafia flag more because at least they know what they believe and will stand on those beliefs.
You and I are basically saying the same thing. The Marquise of Queensbury rules went out the window a long time ago. Our politics have devolved into a no-holds-barred grudge match where no one proceeds with any regard for fairness to the other side anymore. My further (and main) point is that the hypocricy runs both ways.
And you are not misreading me. Until Donald Trump, I rarely voted straight Democrat. Now, I will neither vote for Donald Trump nor any Republican who ever supported him.
I note with interest you responded to all my other comments, but not the one below asking a direct question. That, in and of itself, is the answer. Before you finally respond to this with feigned outrage, you had a week to get to that question, so I believe my assumption of your answer that it was a fair trial, is correct.
Mark, are we still friends? I thought you were ignoring me. Not that this is the reason I didn't respond to the point you raised below. I actually had not noticed it . . . and of course there is this other thing that sometimes distracts me, which I like to call "a life." Indeed, I am glad you asked that question as I think my answer (below) evidences a tad more objectivity than I tend to see from you.
I have my concerns about the judge. First, I would rather he have recused himself because certain of his political donations raise reasonable questions about his impartiality. I also had some difficulty with there being no need for agreement on the crime deemed to have been furthered or concealed by Trump's falsification of business records (thereby elevating the offense to a felony). However, I was recently confronted with a surprising difference between the law in one state versus another. I therefore recognize that under New York law, there could be nothing wrong a jury returning a guilty verdict where they did not 100% agree on a single theory of criminal culpability. But this was a new one on me, and I've been around for a minute or two.
That said, a better question for you to ask might be "Will Trump have gotten a fair trial in New York?" My answer to that question would be yes. The protections that he enjoys include a right to appeal, where any impropriety could bring about the reversal of his conviction. You see, the fairness of our justice system and its requirement that criminal defendants (a) be proven guilty, (b) beyond a reasonable doubt, (c) unanimously, (d) by a jury of one's peers and (e) can have their trial reviewed by another court, is one of the reasons I love this country. It ain't perfect. It just happens to be perhaps the best system yet devised by man.
I just replied to another commenter with the observation that two propositions apparently suggesting different conclusions can nevertheless be true at the same time. Here, it is possible (a) for Trump not to have received a fair trial and (b) for him to nevertheless be a lying scumbag who cheated on his wife as she sat home nursing their newborn baby, and who then falsified his business records in order to cover it up. So now, let me ask you a similarly simple question, especially given the fact that Trump never really denied it at trial.
Do you think Trump falsified his business records?
Are we still friends: I don't know you. I've never met you. My friends are all real people whom I have met in real life. Ah, the ad hominem attack. Nice. You don't disapoint. Thanks ("I think my answer below evidences a tad more objectivity than I see from you.")
Do I think Trump falsified his business records: It's off topic, but I'll answer it. I don't know and it is irrelevant. The partisan prosecutor campaigned on prosecuting Trump. No crime has been committed. The Federal authorities looked at this very incident and declined to prosecute anyone ergo he hasn't been charged with, nor convicted of breaking any law. Thus, the New York statute Bragg used has expired. Trump's rights weren't just violated, they were they were gang-raped, but you're okay with that.
A) and B): No, Trump did NOT receive a fair trial and yes, he's a dispicable scumbag who cheated on all his wives, not just his current one, BUT that just makes it better when he gets elected and inaugurated. I will sit back and eat popcorn as the left explodes.
One final note: No cities were burned under this miscarriage of justice. To a person everyone on the Right I talk to, and I work in a gun store so I talk to this segment of the population daily, no one believes this was a fair trial. If the Christian Right with all our firearms were the problem, this would have been the time we would have rallied and come out of the wood work, but not one riot, not one protest of violence, not one city burnt. When Trump is elected through a fair and honest election of the masses let's see if the Left can say the same. I doubt it. No sir, the "bitter clingers" and "Deplorables" aren't the problem. I would add that it is the same people who claim to be tolerant and so devoid of racism calling for death to the Jews and Zionists right now. That's not coming from the Right. Pay attention to who they are. They will be the ones burning your cities, not the right despite what MSDNC et al say.
First of all it’s not just Progressives that have an issue with a Supreme Court justice flying a revolutionary type flag, or a United States flag upside down (an Internationally recognized Sign of distress). It is sensible Republicans/conservatives like me too. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, our Supreme Court justices ought not to be displaying partisan, politically charged symbols Outside their home? Just as they do not stand or clap during the state of the union address, when they attend it, no matter who is speaking? They are supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan third branch of government. It is improper. Full stop.
Nah, Erick got it right. The hypocrisy on the Left is staggering and I question your "conservatism" when you deny a person in America their free speech because you think it's somehow offensive or disqualifying. Further, taking note of your comment history I call BS on that conservatism as well. I don't think you understand the definition based on your past comments on Substack, but you do you. Trying to change the definitions of words is the tactic of the progressive. You've been outed. Good luck.
Without question, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, including in the exercise of their free speech rights. This proposition is neither liberal nor conservative. Rather, it is simply a long-standing rule of judicial conduct.
Please replace the term "Progressives" with "Democrats" and your points will be accurate.
I am a progressive. The first progressive POTUS was a Republican. Progressive, if words have real meaning, isn't at all what the Democrat party is. They are the opposite. They are deconstructionists. They are a threat to progress. They are not really statists; they are not happy with the status quo... they want to break it and regress.
Trump should have grabbed the label MAG instead of MAGA. Reagan campaigned on Making American Great Again... and it was a mistake then. The vision should be forward, real progress, solving real problems, making life better for the average American family.
In my liberal community where local control is dominated by that species, there is no evidence of any progress. Every category of health of the community is in decline. However, they are sure that LGTB issues and climate crises are the only things we should be focused on.
But if you really think about and understand their motivation for elevating these things, neither have anything to do with progressive advancement. They really don't care about any people impacted by these topics. They are only cult memes to push scarcity of progress.... to attack and stifle all those with productive talent... to drive down the old standards of people advancing to high status by core values, hard work productive merit. They cannot compete well enough in that space, and although they have financial success they know their real character is lacking measured against those with real productive merit.... so they are using their new money to destroy what is really the good... taking us to a dystopian nightmare.
What we have is a societal change where we have over-educated the worst among us and given them the keys to power and control. They are NOT progressives. They are sick. They are the modern Democrat party.
Two systems of justice, two sets of rules, two sets of standards, all of which are selectively applied (or not) for political purposes. We The People witness it every day.
If what you say is true, then Hunter has nothing to worry about.
Experience and recent history combined with skepticism tells me that nothing will happen to Hunter Biden. Back in 2012, I was following the John Edwards corruption case pretty closely. Because he was a Democrat, the case wasn't getting very much media coverage, but it was enough that you could keep track. He faced six felony charges and was looking at a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.... he was found not guilty on one count, and guilty on the other five.... but then the judge immediately declared mistrials on all the guilty counts, throwing the whole thing out of court. Shortly afterwards, the Justice Department said they were dropping all charges and wouldn't pursue it anymore. Edwards walked away smirking. When this thing went to court and guilty rulings came down, I actually did believe that he would be held accountable. But he wasn't. It was just like the same way when Hillary was allowed to get off scot-free, despite the announcement that she actually was guilty (buuut, she didn't mean to do it!). After the Edwards fiasco, I lost all faith in our legal system. After the Hillary case, Biden being declared too incompetent to stand trial, and what they did to Trump... it became crystal clear that there was a 2-tier justice system in America.
Particularly as concerns the case under which Donald Trump was convicted, any unfairness there is matched by the conservatives on the Supreme Court unfairly putting the brakes on the case against Trump for his role (if any) in the events of January 6th. Let me be clear: I do not mean to point the finger of blame in either direction, as we could go on for some time citing instances of hypocricy on both sides. My point is simply that hypocricy and unfairness in dealing with the other side have become the orders of the day.
They hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. They don't even see it as hypocrisy. The ends justify the means. I will vote for Trump and I hope he destroys Biden. I can't wait to see which foreign power stole the election this time. Pass the popcorn while I reload please.
Is it not hypocritical to deny even a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court nominee on the grounds that the vacancy occurred too close to the election, but then turn around a confirm a Trump nominee to fill a vacancy that occurred even closer to an election?
And let us not forget which side first introduced the notion of locking up the other side's presidential nominee.
Is it not hypocritical to change the rules midstream so you can get your judicial nominees through even though, by the rules, the other side is blocking them? Nope. It's politics. Welcome to both sides playing the same game. You were fine as long as your side was winning but the other side wasn't playing by your rules. They are now and you don't like it. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't get any moral high ground. And if I've misread you and you aren't supporting the democrats, well, you appear to be. If so, you are late to the realization that the GOP is now politicing along the same lines. The dems have cross the Rubicon, to use Erick's lingo, with the witch hunt and persecution of Donald Trump. They will now reap what they have sown. I'm not sure how we come back from this, but they get to see how it feels now.
I take that back. I could still vote for Christie.
Christie is NOT a Republican. He's not really even a RINO. He's a Christie meaning he'll do or say whatever he thinks he has to to advance Chris Christie. I despise him as he has no principles. I respect a progressive flying the rainbow mafia flag more because at least they know what they believe and will stand on those beliefs.
You and I are basically saying the same thing. The Marquise of Queensbury rules went out the window a long time ago. Our politics have devolved into a no-holds-barred grudge match where no one proceeds with any regard for fairness to the other side anymore. My further (and main) point is that the hypocricy runs both ways.
And you are not misreading me. Until Donald Trump, I rarely voted straight Democrat. Now, I will neither vote for Donald Trump nor any Republican who ever supported him.
I note with interest you responded to all my other comments, but not the one below asking a direct question. That, in and of itself, is the answer. Before you finally respond to this with feigned outrage, you had a week to get to that question, so I believe my assumption of your answer that it was a fair trial, is correct.
Mark, are we still friends? I thought you were ignoring me. Not that this is the reason I didn't respond to the point you raised below. I actually had not noticed it . . . and of course there is this other thing that sometimes distracts me, which I like to call "a life." Indeed, I am glad you asked that question as I think my answer (below) evidences a tad more objectivity than I tend to see from you.
Let me ask you this. Simple question looking for a simple answer. Do you think Donald Trump got a fair trial in New York?
I have my concerns about the judge. First, I would rather he have recused himself because certain of his political donations raise reasonable questions about his impartiality. I also had some difficulty with there being no need for agreement on the crime deemed to have been furthered or concealed by Trump's falsification of business records (thereby elevating the offense to a felony). However, I was recently confronted with a surprising difference between the law in one state versus another. I therefore recognize that under New York law, there could be nothing wrong a jury returning a guilty verdict where they did not 100% agree on a single theory of criminal culpability. But this was a new one on me, and I've been around for a minute or two.
That said, a better question for you to ask might be "Will Trump have gotten a fair trial in New York?" My answer to that question would be yes. The protections that he enjoys include a right to appeal, where any impropriety could bring about the reversal of his conviction. You see, the fairness of our justice system and its requirement that criminal defendants (a) be proven guilty, (b) beyond a reasonable doubt, (c) unanimously, (d) by a jury of one's peers and (e) can have their trial reviewed by another court, is one of the reasons I love this country. It ain't perfect. It just happens to be perhaps the best system yet devised by man.
I just replied to another commenter with the observation that two propositions apparently suggesting different conclusions can nevertheless be true at the same time. Here, it is possible (a) for Trump not to have received a fair trial and (b) for him to nevertheless be a lying scumbag who cheated on his wife as she sat home nursing their newborn baby, and who then falsified his business records in order to cover it up. So now, let me ask you a similarly simple question, especially given the fact that Trump never really denied it at trial.
Do you think Trump falsified his business records?
Are we still friends: I don't know you. I've never met you. My friends are all real people whom I have met in real life. Ah, the ad hominem attack. Nice. You don't disapoint. Thanks ("I think my answer below evidences a tad more objectivity than I see from you.")
Do I think Trump falsified his business records: It's off topic, but I'll answer it. I don't know and it is irrelevant. The partisan prosecutor campaigned on prosecuting Trump. No crime has been committed. The Federal authorities looked at this very incident and declined to prosecute anyone ergo he hasn't been charged with, nor convicted of breaking any law. Thus, the New York statute Bragg used has expired. Trump's rights weren't just violated, they were they were gang-raped, but you're okay with that.
A) and B): No, Trump did NOT receive a fair trial and yes, he's a dispicable scumbag who cheated on all his wives, not just his current one, BUT that just makes it better when he gets elected and inaugurated. I will sit back and eat popcorn as the left explodes.
One final note: No cities were burned under this miscarriage of justice. To a person everyone on the Right I talk to, and I work in a gun store so I talk to this segment of the population daily, no one believes this was a fair trial. If the Christian Right with all our firearms were the problem, this would have been the time we would have rallied and come out of the wood work, but not one riot, not one protest of violence, not one city burnt. When Trump is elected through a fair and honest election of the masses let's see if the Left can say the same. I doubt it. No sir, the "bitter clingers" and "Deplorables" aren't the problem. I would add that it is the same people who claim to be tolerant and so devoid of racism calling for death to the Jews and Zionists right now. That's not coming from the Right. Pay attention to who they are. They will be the ones burning your cities, not the right despite what MSDNC et al say.
Again, missing the point Erick!
First of all it’s not just Progressives that have an issue with a Supreme Court justice flying a revolutionary type flag, or a United States flag upside down (an Internationally recognized Sign of distress). It is sensible Republicans/conservatives like me too. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, our Supreme Court justices ought not to be displaying partisan, politically charged symbols Outside their home? Just as they do not stand or clap during the state of the union address, when they attend it, no matter who is speaking? They are supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan third branch of government. It is improper. Full stop.
Nah, Erick got it right. The hypocrisy on the Left is staggering and I question your "conservatism" when you deny a person in America their free speech because you think it's somehow offensive or disqualifying. Further, taking note of your comment history I call BS on that conservatism as well. I don't think you understand the definition based on your past comments on Substack, but you do you. Trying to change the definitions of words is the tactic of the progressive. You've been outed. Good luck.
Without question, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, including in the exercise of their free speech rights. This proposition is neither liberal nor conservative. Rather, it is simply a long-standing rule of judicial conduct.
Accept when it's a liberal judge i.e. NY v Trump and his donation to an anti-Trump fund. That's okay because that's (D)ifferent.
No, then too. Merchon should either refrain from donating money to any political cause or recuse himself whenever those causes are implicated.
Stalin Tactics started before 1917. that would not be progressive (new) now???
https://queenseagle.com/all/2024/5/30/queens-man-convicted
Please replace the term "Progressives" with "Democrats" and your points will be accurate.
I am a progressive. The first progressive POTUS was a Republican. Progressive, if words have real meaning, isn't at all what the Democrat party is. They are the opposite. They are deconstructionists. They are a threat to progress. They are not really statists; they are not happy with the status quo... they want to break it and regress.
Trump should have grabbed the label MAG instead of MAGA. Reagan campaigned on Making American Great Again... and it was a mistake then. The vision should be forward, real progress, solving real problems, making life better for the average American family.
In my liberal community where local control is dominated by that species, there is no evidence of any progress. Every category of health of the community is in decline. However, they are sure that LGTB issues and climate crises are the only things we should be focused on.
But if you really think about and understand their motivation for elevating these things, neither have anything to do with progressive advancement. They really don't care about any people impacted by these topics. They are only cult memes to push scarcity of progress.... to attack and stifle all those with productive talent... to drive down the old standards of people advancing to high status by core values, hard work productive merit. They cannot compete well enough in that space, and although they have financial success they know their real character is lacking measured against those with real productive merit.... so they are using their new money to destroy what is really the good... taking us to a dystopian nightmare.
What we have is a societal change where we have over-educated the worst among us and given them the keys to power and control. They are NOT progressives. They are sick. They are the modern Democrat party.
It did not used to be that way. But it is now.
have your staff upload your podcast already. Its 4:05pm. was not able to listen live. :)
it finally came in. thanks