Knicks · OT: Trump Trial Predictions (page 5)
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/KingBacca22x/status/1796904533244752040?t=AQXbNhp3sO4MrE-IhQAkGA&s=19
Click here to view the Tweet
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.
gradyandrew wrote:I believe sentencing will take place on July 11 and the Republican Convention begins July 15.
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.
You speak in term of possibilities.
Why are you guessing at this stuff? You are taking a quite curious passive voice of guessing while simultaneously drawing conclusions based on your guesses.
martin wrote:gradyandrew wrote:I believe sentencing will take place on July 11 and the Republican Convention begins July 15.
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.You speak in term of possibilities.
Why are you guessing at this stuff? You are taking a quite curious passive voice of guessing while simultaneously drawing conclusions based on your guesses.
I'm interested in this topic so I like talking about it but I also realize that it's something that can easily escalate to an unfriendly conversation so I'm trying not to say anything that people will get upset about.
gradyandrew wrote:martin wrote:gradyandrew wrote:I believe sentencing will take place on July 11 and the Republican Convention begins July 15.
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.You speak in term of possibilities.
Why are you guessing at this stuff? You are taking a quite curious passive voice of guessing while simultaneously drawing conclusions based on your guesses.
I'm interested in this topic so I like talking about it but I also realize that it's something that can easily escalate to an unfriendly conversation so I'm trying not to say anything that people will get upset about.
A lot of what you are trying to state are just facts. That are easily looked up.
Who are you trying to engage that would get upset?
martin wrote:gradyandrew wrote:martin wrote:gradyandrew wrote:I believe sentencing will take place on July 11 and the Republican Convention begins July 15.
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.You speak in term of possibilities.
Why are you guessing at this stuff? You are taking a quite curious passive voice of guessing while simultaneously drawing conclusions based on your guesses.
I'm interested in this topic so I like talking about it but I also realize that it's something that can easily escalate to an unfriendly conversation so I'm trying not to say anything that people will get upset about.
A lot of what you are trying to state are just facts. That are easily looked up.
Who are you trying to engage that would get upset?
You bro! Do you think jail time is a possibility or is the case too political to make it so? Same goes for a fine but for the other way. All it will require is a bond until the case winds its way through appeals. Community service seems like the only possibility to me.
gradyandrew wrote:I believe sentencing will take place on July 11 and the Republican Convention begins July 15.
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.
No his lawyer can petition the court for an appeal bond. Trump doesn’t have to serve jail time until the appeals court makes its decision
gradyandrew wrote:martin wrote:gradyandrew wrote:martin wrote:gradyandrew wrote:I believe sentencing will take place on July 11 and the Republican Convention begins July 15.
Trump's lawyers will appeal the verdict, but I think it doesn't matter as far as sentencing goes. He will have to serve his sentence while the verdict works it's way through appeal.
Possible sentences include jail time and community service. I'm not sure if a fine is also possible but I think so.
It seems like the judge has a lot of latitude in determining the sentencing. Not an enviable spot for that guy to be in. I'm guessing it will be for community service. That seems like it will be the least contentious kind of penalty.You speak in term of possibilities.
Why are you guessing at this stuff? You are taking a quite curious passive voice of guessing while simultaneously drawing conclusions based on your guesses.
I'm interested in this topic so I like talking about it but I also realize that it's something that can easily escalate to an unfriendly conversation so I'm trying not to say anything that people will get upset about.
A lot of what you are trying to state are just facts. That are easily looked up.
Who are you trying to engage that would get upset?
You bro! Do you think jail time is a possibility or is the case too political to make it so? Same goes for a fine but for the other way. All it will require is a bond until the case winds its way through appeals. Community service seems like the only possibility to me.
You are doing good work overseas and spending time talking to others about one of the very good place in this world.
I think the conversation needs to start in a vastly different place. Our media is failing its people by suppositioning in the same way you have. Don’t start behind the 8ball and you won’t start by moving the goal posts in the wrong direction.
Mike Johnson, who is Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Unites States and who is also completely beholden to Donald Trump (and other people) - and let's be candid, Trump himself is completely beholden to Putin and a lot of other really really bad people in the world - nominates Ronnie "Candy Man" Jackson and Scott Perry to positions of oversight to the Intelligence Community of the United States. The Ronnie Jackson who was the major drug supplier to the entire White House during his rotation of whatever medical advice things he was doing. Perry, less of a drug addict and more of an evil schemer, is eyeballs deeps into 2020 election fraud and has had his phones seized.
This is how spectacularly in danger we are all in as a country. It is happening right out in the open.
Anyone mad? Or it's just Wednesday?
Do any of the citizens of the United States wonder why those 2 particular people were nominated to those positions? Is it because of their vast experience in Intelligence related things?
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/bresreports/status/1798388989986279837
Click here to view the Tweet
Anyway, this is HILARIOUS
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1798370022840046024
Click here to view the Tweet
That seems to me to be a banana republic of sorts.
martin wrote:gradyandrew, what's your take on the 2nd person in line succession for the Presidency nominating 2 people who are collectively under investigation by the FBI into positions that give them oversight (and insight) to those exact organizations that are investigating them?That seems to me to be a banana republic of sorts.
I can't view Twitter over here but I was able to find an AP article on the subject.
https://apnews.com/article/house-intelli...
Yeah, it's a disgrace. Quid pro quo for MAGA to take it easy on Johnson though I'm guessing it won't really matter in the end.
This was kind of the deal for the whole Trump presidency where, maybe with the exception of his State Department and Nat. Security team (I won't debate the point if you disagree), he appointed the most incompetent people in his orbit (Ben Carson, Rick Perry) to kill the government through incompetence.
I'm also super pissed about Fani Willis. It seems to me this was.the strongest case in terms of impact on the election. Trump's infamous phone call to Raffensperger already went public, but I think getting all the behind the scenes scheming under the spotlight is a case most people couldn't shrug off. The Election and Bank Fraud cases haven't really hurt Trump because there's no obvious victim. With election fraud, it would have been a lot clearer what he was up to.
But who the hell knows?!? There's been no evidence of election fraud for four years yet a majority of Republicans believe it. The idiots at Government Mules are still spouting their bullshit on Tucker Carlson without anyone doing a fact check.
Anyway, I think the death knell was a few years back when the SC refused to use the equal protection clause to mandate the states to do away with gerrymandering districts. It was a real Brown v. Education Board moment and they decided to Plessy v. Ferguson it.
martin, I think you follow NYS politics closely and are familiar with the whole fiasco regarding the legislature refusing to implement any of the recommendations their own appointed experts made for redrawing NY's districts.
The only positive I can see is that in these two hacks selfish desire to make Trump look good, the public can get a better idea of what steps the military is taking to push us into a war with Russia and China.
When is someone going to finally convince John Stewart to run for POTUS.
gradyandrew wrote:
The only positive I can see is that in these two hacks selfish desire to make Trump look good, the public can get a better idea of what steps the military is taking to push us into a war with Russia and China.
Neville Chamberlain and Raymond Poincaré circa 1938 anyone?
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:
The only positive I can see is that in these two hacks selfish desire to make Trump look good, the public can get a better idea of what steps the military is taking to push us into a war with Russia and China.Neville Chamberlain and Raymond Poincaré circa 1938 anyone?
I think the more apt comparison is the German General Staff in 1914. Germany knew they had military superiority over France and Russia but because of the new French conscription law and proposed reforms in Russia, it would be increasingly dicey in the upcoming years.
This comparison only takes you so far because of course Germany was never able to ring in the competition with allied states.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:
The only positive I can see is that in these two hacks selfish desire to make Trump look good, the public can get a better idea of what steps the military is taking to push us into a war with Russia and China.Neville Chamberlain and Raymond Poincaré circa 1938 anyone?
I think the more apt comparison is the German General Staff in 1914. Germany knew they had military superiority over France and Russia but because of the new French conscription law and proposed reforms in Russia, it would be increasingly dicey in the upcoming years.
This comparison only takes you so far because of course Germany was never able to ring in the competition with allied states.
Germany was not fighting a defensive war then, Russia is not fighting a defensive war now. If you are one of those people who are going to claim that Russia is fighting a defensive war - then don't be one of those people.
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:
The only positive I can see is that in these two hacks selfish desire to make Trump look good, the public can get a better idea of what steps the military is taking to push us into a war with Russia and China.Neville Chamberlain and Raymond Poincaré circa 1938 anyone?
I think the more apt comparison is the German General Staff in 1914. Germany knew they had military superiority over France and Russia but because of the new French conscription law and proposed reforms in Russia, it would be increasingly dicey in the upcoming years.
This comparison only takes you so far because of course Germany was never able to ring in the competition with allied states.
Germany was not fighting a defensive war then, Russia is not fighting a defensive war now. If you are one of those people who are going to claim that Russia is fighting a defensive war - then don't be one of those people.
Do you think absent the US invitation for Ukraine to join NATO Russia would have invaded?
I'm not going to argue any sort of moral justification for Russia's invasion. Similar to the US invasion of Panama in 1989, the Crimea and Sevastopol is a vital artery for Russia and it was short sighted for US policy makers not to realize that. Putin has been clear over the years that the admission of Ukraine into NATO is an existential threat to Russia and he would act on it.
There was a significant amount of gloating in 2022 that Russia would spend all of its power in the Ukraine and it would eventually result in the downfall of Putin. In 2023, there was the false promise of a summer offensive that would liberate Crimea. Now we're two years in and Ukraine is in ruins. Are the peace solutions on the table any better than the terms Bad Vlad offered in 2021 prior to invasion or in 2022 in Turkey after the initial failure?
Left to their own devices (ie no US support for Maidan in 2014), I think it's tough to argue that Ukrainians would be worse off.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Germany was not fighting a defensive war then, Russia is not fighting a defensive war now. If you are one of those people who are going to claim that Russia is fighting a defensive war - then don't be one of those people.Do you think absent the US invitation for Ukraine to join NATO Russia would have invaded?
What difference does it make? Incidentally, yes, I do.
gradyandrew wrote:I'm not going to argue any sort of moral justification for Russia's invasion. Similar to the US invasion of Panama in 1989, the Crimea and Sevastopol is a vital artery for Russia and it was short sighted for US policy makers not to realize that.
False equivalence. The United States did not annex any Panamanian territory.
gradyandrew wrote:Putin has been clear over the years that the admission of Ukraine into NATO is an existential threat to Russia and he would act on it.
That's his problem. Hitler was also clear for years that the German people needed more living space (lebensraum). So what?
gradyandrew wrote:There was a significant amount of gloating in 2022 that Russia would spend all of its power in the Ukraine and it would eventually result in the downfall of Putin. In 2023, there was the false promise of a summer offensive that would liberate Crimea. Now we're two years in and Ukraine is in ruins. Are the peace solutions on the table any better than the terms Bad Vlad offered in 2021 prior to invasion or in 2022 in Turkey after the initial failure?Left to their own devices (ie no US support for Maidan in 2014), I think it's tough to argue that Ukrainians would be worse off.
Looks like you are arguing that an aggressor should always be accommodated in his demands, since peace is better than war. Which is why I brought up Chamberlain and Poincare in the first place.
His failed economic policies necessitated hostile take over. He gave away state assets to cronies for cents on the dollar when soviet block divested and they never caught up. Russians have a thing for suffering. They make good knick fans.
Nalod wrote:For what Russia wants, they could have paid Ukraine? Food production, port access? Were they denied anything if not for sanctions?
His failed economic policies necessitated hostile take over. He gave away state assets to cronies for cents on the dollar when soviet block divested and they never caught up. Russians have a thing for suffering. They make good knick fans.
Russians have a thing for suffering, but also a thing for making others suffer in the process (I'm originally from Russia, BTW, so I know what I am talking about).
Knicks fans do not take out their misery on others.
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Germany was not fighting a defensive war then, Russia is not fighting a defensive war now. If you are one of those people who are going to claim that Russia is fighting a defensive war - then don't be one of those people.Do you think absent the US invitation for Ukraine to join NATO Russia would have invaded?
What difference does it make? Incidentally, yes, I do.
gradyandrew wrote:I'm not going to argue any sort of moral justification for Russia's invasion. Similar to the US invasion of Panama in 1989, the Crimea and Sevastopol is a vital artery for Russia and it was short sighted for US policy makers not to realize that.False equivalence. The United States did not annex any Panamanian territory.
gradyandrew wrote:Putin has been clear over the years that the admission of Ukraine into NATO is an existential threat to Russia and he would act on it.That's his problem. Hitler was also clear for years that the German people needed more living space (lebensraum). So what?
gradyandrew wrote:There was a significant amount of gloating in 2022 that Russia would spend all of its power in the Ukraine and it would eventually result in the downfall of Putin. In 2023, there was the false promise of a summer offensive that would liberate Crimea. Now we're two years in and Ukraine is in ruins. Are the peace solutions on the table any better than the terms Bad Vlad offered in 2021 prior to invasion or in 2022 in Turkey after the initial failure?Left to their own devices (ie no US support for Maidan in 2014), I think it's tough to argue that Ukrainians would be worse off.
Looks like you are arguing that an aggressor should always be accommodated in his demands, since peace is better than war. Which is why I brought up Chamberlain and Poincare in the first place.
People have been pre-brainwashed to take that perspective and I don’t even know how it is entertained.