If this piece had left out the references to Trump's trial, I would be praising it as one that finally gives many great examples of reasons to not vote for Trump. Thanks for that part, David, but you are wrong about the verdict and it's ramifications, which I'm confident will be proven out in the coming days, weeks, and months as the Trump team mounts it's appeals.
As I’ve said before, I was somewhat surprised at the verdict, but it was a fair verdict. A lot of the analysis of the trial holds that Trump weakened his own case by insisting that his lawyers deny the affair and other obvious facts, which damaged his credibility.
If he wins on appeal, that’s more evidence that he’s not being crucified or railroaded.
Interesting the trump team will be mounting his "appeal;" nope not the fact they are doing it, but the defense case they presented was an abomination. 2 witnesses and one of them was a train wreck and the other added nothing. The question of the day; were they held back by trump clinging to the narrative "it never happened?"
By the time i finished the article David, one thought plagued me more than any other: We know less and less American's are participating in religion. My immediate reaction is that trump and his crazy followers making a mockery out of trump being Christ-like are accelerating that departure.
I don't think most people separate the two any more. The Republicans started the process by associating themselves closely with family values and the evangelical movement. Trump came along and took over, and used the same tactics.
I've been a believer since I was five years old, but the behavior of family members and people who mentored me throughout my life (who are evangelical Christians) has soured me on American Christianity in general. Logically I know that the people who have disappointed me so with their unequivocal and fanatical support for Trump are not displaying true Christianity, but that's only because I have a lifetime of knowledge and experience telling me what being Christ-like should look like.
If we are talking about people who have never been to church and have only had negative or uncomfortable interactions with those who called themselves Christians, they have even less reason than I do to think well of Christianity let alone find it appealing.
Media portrayal of Christians as ignorant hypocrites has been pervasive for decades. Add to that the evangelicals' very public and very stubborn embrace of Trump no matter what vile things he does and says, plus the personal factors I already mentioned, and you have a public perception of Christianity that is almost guaranteed to repel people rather than attract.
This is why Christians are exhorted to maintain their "testimony." It SHOULD be that all a person who had been listening to the perceptions of Christianity put forth in the wider world would have to do is look to individual Christians to see that their conduct doesn't match. That isn't possible any more in the US because a very strident group of evangelicals has confirmed everything that's been said about them in the media for the last few decades.
At the end of the day, it will not matter what Trump has done, or anyone else. Not one of us will be able to stand before God and say, well, Trump soured me on the concept of Christianity, or I didn't get saved because so and so didn't live up to Christian ideals.
That fact doesn't mean we as individuals aren't accountable for our failure to be Christ's ambassadors on Earth. It's literally why we're here. It's true that God is sovereign and can do whatever He wishes with or without our help, but He has asked us to be willing to participate in His work.
i agree...sometimes folks can't speak clearly about the extreme affront and enmity that this so called "trial" is all about and has produced. Evil can be a little confounding for the sheep. But there are warriors of God that know exactly what this is. They know they feel a very natural thing when serpentine evil is blasted across the globe and some bloke gets shat upon by it. but we also know enough that our Lord was murdered, yet it was written and our Lord even wished the result to man did not have to happen. I can be gentle with the young sheep, and I do correct them...in love.
the real problem that I see, is that the "law" was actually raped, here. And I would be angry any time our laws are raped in order to go against anyone. So, all the blah blah blah, is really the enmity we hear....between the woman's seed (thru which would come Christ), and the evil one's (the serpent and eve that produced Cain). So....many are confused and just don't know what exactly they are looking at or seeing.
I can deal with Trump hate. He has many faults but he's still a better option than Biden. A kangaroo court is not the way to get him. I do not for a moment believe he is guilty of the felony charged in the trial.
There are dozens of experts that disagree with you on the so-called crime and on the conduct of the trial. A few links are posted below. Noting your disdain for most sources that aren't The Dispatch or The Bulwark or Pro-Publica or similar publications, I do not expect you to read them.
I did notice a piece of evidence listed for the trial that I could not find a copy of. It was a 1099-MISC for the $420,000 paid to Cohen for legal expenses. I don't know how it was presented in the trial or how it indicated an illegality. I have done over 100 tax returns involving a 1099-MISC. The largest amount was about $65,000. In every case, it was the taxpayer's responsibility to report it on his return and document any expenses to deduct from the amount paid.
The first one is just not understanding the idea of finding someone guilty of a particular crime while differing on the specifics of what makes them guilty. A metaphor I saw and liked: a defendant is accused of beating their spouse. Four members of the jury believe the defendant beat their spouse with their right hand; four other members believe that the defendant kicked their spouse; and the other four believe the defendant used a belt. The crime statute simply states that the charged beat their spouse: so they are unanimous that the defendant did beat their spouse, while differing on the particular method. That's the instruction for the relevant charges against Trump, and whether the pro-Trump want to admit it or not, there were specific violations that were provided by the prosecution: "Violating FECA through the unlaw individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, Pecker and AMI; and... by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and micharacterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes."
Again, Brad Smith was allowed to testify on what the background of the FEC/FECA and the laws themselves: he was not allowed to opine on Trump's guilt, which would violate rules regarding expert witness testimony.
$130,000 of it was never for legal expenses, but instead for the reimbursement of the Stormy Daniels payment - which violated campaign finance law (for Cohen it exceeded the maximum campaign contribution, and for Trump it's illegal to reimburse campaign contributions). So the 1099-MISC is part of the falsification of business records.
I've already discounted your testimony and am going with the experts. If a wealthy client tells a lawyer to take care of a matter, the lawyer will usually do it and submit a bill for legal expenses. Brad Smith should have been allowed to testify whether or not the prosecution allegations would have been crimes under FEC criteria.
You mean you're ignoring experts that don't tell you what you want to hear or the actual documentation from the case, and go with those that tell you what you want to hear.
The lawyer would setup the deal between his client and the other party: the client would have to agree to it and then pay the other party directly (or perhaps through some sort of escrow service). The lawyer would not pay that fee from their own pocket and then be reimbursed.
Brad Smith could have been called to testify about the matters I stated as per the rules for expert witnesses: the Trump team decided that that testimony was not useful, so did not call him.
If this piece had left out the references to Trump's trial, I would be praising it as one that finally gives many great examples of reasons to not vote for Trump. Thanks for that part, David, but you are wrong about the verdict and it's ramifications, which I'm confident will be proven out in the coming days, weeks, and months as the Trump team mounts it's appeals.
It’s possible that you’re right.
As I’ve said before, I was somewhat surprised at the verdict, but it was a fair verdict. A lot of the analysis of the trial holds that Trump weakened his own case by insisting that his lawyers deny the affair and other obvious facts, which damaged his credibility.
If he wins on appeal, that’s more evidence that he’s not being crucified or railroaded.
Interesting the trump team will be mounting his "appeal;" nope not the fact they are doing it, but the defense case they presented was an abomination. 2 witnesses and one of them was a train wreck and the other added nothing. The question of the day; were they held back by trump clinging to the narrative "it never happened?"
By the time i finished the article David, one thought plagued me more than any other: We know less and less American's are participating in religion. My immediate reaction is that trump and his crazy followers making a mockery out of trump being Christ-like are accelerating that departure.
Would make me feel less endearing to Trump fanatics, than it would to Christianity. But that is just my take.
I don't think most people separate the two any more. The Republicans started the process by associating themselves closely with family values and the evangelical movement. Trump came along and took over, and used the same tactics.
I've been a believer since I was five years old, but the behavior of family members and people who mentored me throughout my life (who are evangelical Christians) has soured me on American Christianity in general. Logically I know that the people who have disappointed me so with their unequivocal and fanatical support for Trump are not displaying true Christianity, but that's only because I have a lifetime of knowledge and experience telling me what being Christ-like should look like.
If we are talking about people who have never been to church and have only had negative or uncomfortable interactions with those who called themselves Christians, they have even less reason than I do to think well of Christianity let alone find it appealing.
Media portrayal of Christians as ignorant hypocrites has been pervasive for decades. Add to that the evangelicals' very public and very stubborn embrace of Trump no matter what vile things he does and says, plus the personal factors I already mentioned, and you have a public perception of Christianity that is almost guaranteed to repel people rather than attract.
This is why Christians are exhorted to maintain their "testimony." It SHOULD be that all a person who had been listening to the perceptions of Christianity put forth in the wider world would have to do is look to individual Christians to see that their conduct doesn't match. That isn't possible any more in the US because a very strident group of evangelicals has confirmed everything that's been said about them in the media for the last few decades.
TL;DR I agree with Bill, and it breaks my heart.
At the end of the day, it will not matter what Trump has done, or anyone else. Not one of us will be able to stand before God and say, well, Trump soured me on the concept of Christianity, or I didn't get saved because so and so didn't live up to Christian ideals.
That fact doesn't mean we as individuals aren't accountable for our failure to be Christ's ambassadors on Earth. It's literally why we're here. It's true that God is sovereign and can do whatever He wishes with or without our help, but He has asked us to be willing to participate in His work.
Amen
i agree...sometimes folks can't speak clearly about the extreme affront and enmity that this so called "trial" is all about and has produced. Evil can be a little confounding for the sheep. But there are warriors of God that know exactly what this is. They know they feel a very natural thing when serpentine evil is blasted across the globe and some bloke gets shat upon by it. but we also know enough that our Lord was murdered, yet it was written and our Lord even wished the result to man did not have to happen. I can be gentle with the young sheep, and I do correct them...in love.
the real problem that I see, is that the "law" was actually raped, here. And I would be angry any time our laws are raped in order to go against anyone. So, all the blah blah blah, is really the enmity we hear....between the woman's seed (thru which would come Christ), and the evil one's (the serpent and eve that produced Cain). So....many are confused and just don't know what exactly they are looking at or seeing.
I can deal with Trump hate. He has many faults but he's still a better option than Biden. A kangaroo court is not the way to get him. I do not for a moment believe he is guilty of the felony charged in the trial.
There are dozens of experts that disagree with you on the so-called crime and on the conduct of the trial. A few links are posted below. Noting your disdain for most sources that aren't The Dispatch or The Bulwark or Pro-Publica or similar publications, I do not expect you to read them.
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/the-jury-instructions-in-new-york?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://twitchy.com/samj/2024/06/02/brad-smith-thread-merchan-refused-to-allow-him-to-testify-n2396896
https://law.syracuse.edu/news/proferssor-gregory-germain-writes-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/
I did notice a piece of evidence listed for the trial that I could not find a copy of. It was a 1099-MISC for the $420,000 paid to Cohen for legal expenses. I don't know how it was presented in the trial or how it indicated an illegality. I have done over 100 tax returns involving a 1099-MISC. The largest amount was about $65,000. In every case, it was the taxpayer's responsibility to report it on his return and document any expenses to deduct from the amount paid.
The first one is just not understanding the idea of finding someone guilty of a particular crime while differing on the specifics of what makes them guilty. A metaphor I saw and liked: a defendant is accused of beating their spouse. Four members of the jury believe the defendant beat their spouse with their right hand; four other members believe that the defendant kicked their spouse; and the other four believe the defendant used a belt. The crime statute simply states that the charged beat their spouse: so they are unanimous that the defendant did beat their spouse, while differing on the particular method. That's the instruction for the relevant charges against Trump, and whether the pro-Trump want to admit it or not, there were specific violations that were provided by the prosecution: "Violating FECA through the unlaw individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, Pecker and AMI; and... by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and micharacterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes."
Again, Brad Smith was allowed to testify on what the background of the FEC/FECA and the laws themselves: he was not allowed to opine on Trump's guilt, which would violate rules regarding expert witness testimony.
$130,000 of it was never for legal expenses, but instead for the reimbursement of the Stormy Daniels payment - which violated campaign finance law (for Cohen it exceeded the maximum campaign contribution, and for Trump it's illegal to reimburse campaign contributions). So the 1099-MISC is part of the falsification of business records.
I've already discounted your testimony and am going with the experts. If a wealthy client tells a lawyer to take care of a matter, the lawyer will usually do it and submit a bill for legal expenses. Brad Smith should have been allowed to testify whether or not the prosecution allegations would have been crimes under FEC criteria.
You mean you're ignoring experts that don't tell you what you want to hear or the actual documentation from the case, and go with those that tell you what you want to hear.
The lawyer would setup the deal between his client and the other party: the client would have to agree to it and then pay the other party directly (or perhaps through some sort of escrow service). The lawyer would not pay that fee from their own pocket and then be reimbursed.
Brad Smith could have been called to testify about the matters I stated as per the rules for expert witnesses: the Trump team decided that that testimony was not useful, so did not call him.
That's one way of doing it but acting as a billionaire's agent might be different.
The judge established the rules to prohibit, as much as possible, any testimony that might help Trump's cause.
Expert witnesses are not allowed to opine on the matter at hand: full stop. You're just whining at this point.
Disconnect. Go play some golf or bocce. It'll be good for you.
https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/law-101-for-experts-what-can-and-cannot-be-asked-of-an-expert-witness-at-trial/