General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

duncan smith
Forbes Breaking News
comments

Comments by "duncan smith" (@duncansmith7562) on "BREAKING NEWS: Trump Speaks To Reporters After Michael Cohen Testifies In NYC Hush Money Trial" video.

no point wasting any time testifying when the judge and jury already decided on day one to assume Trump is guilty
2
@MikeW165 again, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I said when you pay a lawyer to arrange an NDA, that IS a legal expense. I am waiting for you to quote the law stating that NDAs can only be a legal expense when arranged by a lawyer on a retainer! Go ahead, quote the law.
2
maybe they're not.
2
what's the point in testifying when the democrat judge and democrat jury already decided Trump is guilty? waste of time.
1
@MikeW165 it's the judge that is biased. look at who his family donates to and who his daughter campaigns for. a conflicted, biased judge. FACTS! any jury in Manhattan is going to be pro Democrat. FACT. Looks like you need to learn the facts.
1
@MikeW165 If Judge Cannon has a son or daughter that is an activist and campaigner for the Republican party, and Judge Cannon has donated to or has a spouse that has donated to the Republican party then, yes, clearly, such a judge is conflicted and cannot possibly be impartial in handling a case involving Trump, nor indeed any political figure of high standing. Judges must be seen to be above party politics. Period. Same goes for Judge MacAfee in the Fani Willis hearing in Atlanta. At least in FL you will get a jury that is pretty evenly split in its political leanings.
1
@MikeW165 Also, keep in mind, there is, as yet, no trial in FL.
1
@MikeW165 yeah, the crime is naming a legal expense as a legal expense while your last name is Trump. It's a serious crime in NY, but nowhere else.
1
@MikeW165 yeah, no one else has ever been prosecuted for this, but suddenly in election year, the case is brought to court. nothing political at all. then again, maybe it took 10 years for Cohen to get his story straight.
1
@MikeW165 99% of the time there is no need to set any political bias aside, because the vast majority of cases do not involve politics or politicians. the job of a judge is to be referee. but in the very few cases where a judge has clearly a political bias that would impact his/her ability to be a fair referee, that judge needs to step aside. Merchan should have recused himself. anyone who doesn't see that is just happy with prejudice and corruption to permeate the court.
1
@MikeW165 a gag order on the defendant but on no one else involved in the trial is such a horrendous violation of impartiality and legal ethics that it should mean disbarment of this activist judge, and you know it.
1
@MikeW165 clearly you have a problem with reading comprehension. As I said, if a judge has donated to anyone involved in a trial, that judge should recuse herself/himself, and failing to do that, be removed. It is impossible to seem to be fair if you have donated to a party involved in the case. MacAfee in Atlanta is a case in point.
1
@MikeW165 The difference is that Cannon may yet be removed before any trial, we have not gotten to that point yet.
1
@MikeW165 just because something has never happened before doesn't mean it must be right or acceptable. it's about time the US legal system woke up and saw how disgustingly unfair trials and hearings can be when a conflicted judge is involved. For political figures in a trial, a judge who has refused to donate to anyone would be the only way to be seen to be impartial. period.
1
@MikeW165 when you pay a lawyer to arrange an NDA, it is 100% a legal expense. it's done all the time. all the other people who have arranged an NDA, how do they account for it? and why have none of them been taken to court?
1
@MikeW165 a gag order on the defendant but on no one else is political bias.
1
@MikeW165 the judge is conflicted by his family's close affiliations with the Democrat party, and gagging a defendant is such a horrendous violation of the First Amendment that Judge Merchan needs to be removed, and go back to law school.
1
@MikeW165 she hasn't recused herself because she doesn't have to, but she should, if she wants the world to perceive the proceedings as fair. I have made this point three times now, but you seem confused. Are you 12 years old?
1
@MikeW165 false. lawyers and their legal fees can be charged via a retainer fee, or per case on a one off basis. If you really believe that all NDAs are handled by lawyers on a retainer fee, and not one single NDA has ever happened as a one off case, handled by a lawyer NOT on a retainer, then you have no clue how the legal world works. whenever you pay a lawyer a fee, it is a legal expense, period.
1
@MikeW165 the problem is I do know how the law works. Go ahead. Quote the law that says an NDA is only a legal expense when paid to a lawyer held on a retainer. Then list all the other people who paid a lawyer to arrange an NDA who ended up in court because the lawyer they used wasn't on a retainer. cue crickets.
1
@MikeW165 and now the truth. when you pay a lawyer to arrange a Non Disclosure Agreement, that is a legal fee and can, and should, be recorded as a legal fee. But go ahead, quote the law word for word.
1
@MikeW165 You are not the brightest, are you. Neither Merchan nor Cannon have to recuse themselves because the law doesn't demand that of them. But both should, so that the appearance of impartiality is maintained. Got it?
1
@MikeW165 you just proved your stupidity! Cannon gets to donate without recusal and that is wrong. Merchan gets to donate without recusal and that is wrong. MacAfee gets to donate without recusal and that is wrong. How many more times do I have to spell it out?
1
@MikeW165 Totally agree, and in both cases justice is not served. The trial in motion right now is the one in NY, and it is clear the judge is conflicted. IF the FL case comes to trial, and Judge Cannon is in charge, all the Dems will be saying how conflicted and biased she is. And I dare say you will be one of them.
1
@MikeW165 agreed, and that is where the law must be changed.
1
@mikew764 and given that the Non Disclosure Agreement is handled in its entirety by a lawyer, paying that lawyer for all costs involved is indeed a legal fee. Tell me, when you pay a doctor to treat you, would that be a medical fee?
1
@mikew764 the gag order would be on someone else because a witness attacking the defendant is equally offensive as the defendant attacking a witness. to gag only one party when two or more are attacking each other is bias and unconstitutional.
1
@mikew764 any payment to your lawyer for arranging a legal contract is a legal expense. but just for fun, let's play your game. if Trump had written "payment of hush money" in his accounts, instead of "legal expense", why would that be a crime? Paying hush money is legal. So, you are saying that paying hush money is legal, and recording it as hush money is absolutely fine, but recording it as a legal expense is a crime and should be liable for jail time. yeah?
1
@mikew764 do you think every person that ever paid hush money recorded such a payment as hush money? yes or no?
1
@mikew764 the judge is not conflicted because i say he is. the judge is conflicted because he clearly has shown political bias against Trump.
1
@mikew764 when a person is being paid to create a legal contract, it is a legal fee. the word "reimbursement" is irrelevant. reimbursement just means that the legal contract was handled by a lawyer who was subsequently paid for doing so. If my wife goes to the pharmacy and buys my medicine, and then I reimburse my wife, that is a medical expense.
1
@mikew764 it's not about the hush money at all. if it were about the hush money. Bragg wouldn't insist that the crime was election interference. checkmate. remember, Bragg's argument is that the term "legal expense" is to mask another crime, and he claims that other crime is to interfere in an election! Unlike you, Bragg has no problem with hush money being paid, he knows it happens all the time. it's not about the hush money itself. Take your L and move on!
1
@mikew764 there is definitely an ethical reason for Merchan to recuse himself. I would imagine that there is a legal reason too, but I don't know the wording of NY law that covers circumstances for recusal.
1
@mikew764 The Constitution does not distinguish between a defendant and a witness when it comes to freedom of speech, and you know it. There is nothing in law that says ONLY a defendant should be gagged when witness and defendant are verbally attacking each other. Common decency would allow the defendant to verbally attack a witness in equal measure as the witness attacks the defendant. The fact that such fairness and common decency has been shoved aside by the judge shows how biased he is. Now, given you are unable to quote NY law that states how the recording of NDAs must be made, I'll assume you have no idea what the law says. checkmate.
1
@mikew764 who says the check was written for any hush money? does the check say "for hush money"? surely the check just states an amount to be paid.
1
@mikew764 when you are paying a lawyer, it's a legal expense, just as it's a medical expense when you pay a doctor. not that hard a concept to grasp.
1
@mikew764 then quote the law! quote word for word the statute! cue crickets.
1
@mikew764 so, who's the victim in this crime of writing the words "legal expense" instead of "hush money"?
1
@mikew764 the problem is I know exactly what the word reimbursement means. when my wife goes to the pharmacy and I reimburse her for buying my medication, that is a medical expense. the act of reimbursing does not alter the nature of the expense, and THAT is what you have no idea of.
1
@mikew764 i already said that the ethical reason for recusal is the affiliations he and his family have with the Democrat party. I already said that the ethical reasons for Cannon to recuse herself would be the same, close affiliation to the Republican party. you clearly have very low reading comprehension skills.
1
@mikew764 only if the next judge had the same affiliations demonstrated. this is the nature of having judges linked to political parties. it makes trials featuring political defendants a nonsense. the american system doesn't work when the defendant is a political leader.
1
@mikew764 the problem is that Trump is being held accountable for something that is not a crime, and that is what you can't handle.
1
@mikew764 on the contrary, courts have long determined equality before the law, and defendants can exercise free speech rights to the same extent as anyone else.
1
@mikew764 a witness is in a position to intimidate a defendant just as much as a defendant is in a position to intimidate a witness. failure to grasp that reality speaks volumes for your lack of understanding
1
@mikew764 go ahead. quote the words in the contract that prove any given individual check was specifically for hush money and quote the words of NY law that state only lawyers on retainers can be paid as a legal expense. why so shy to state the law?
1
@mikew764 every time I post I show you have no idea what this case is about. when put on the spot you can't quote the law concerned and you can't identify the crime apart from "he wrote "legal expense" instead of "hush money"...oooooh. such a crime!
1
@mikew764 in other words, there is no victim. thanks for confessing that. yep, if i drive 60 mph in a 50 mph zone and there is no victim, that is such a crime a trial and jail time should result. welcome to N Korea. no victim, so, off to jail. Biden's USA, but not for much longer.
1
@mikew764 who said that a crime requires a victim? i merely asked you who the victim was. again, poor reading comprehension skills, but still, good to see you confess this trial involves no victim at all. seems to be a feature of all the cases against Trump. no one is ever a victim...hmmm
1
@mikew764 in the real world, prosecutors pick and choose which cases to prosecute based on severity of the crime and chances of success. this case has zero on the severity of the crime index, and only ranks high on the likelihood of conviction because we have a Democrat judge and a Democrat jury.
1
@acdc123456781 yep, certainly sounds like a problem to me!
1
@mikew764 on the contrary, the problem for you is that I know exactly what "reimbursement" means, and I can see it is irrelevant in this case. If my wife goes to the pharmacy to buy my medicine, and I reimburse her for the costs, that cost is still medical expenses. what you don't get is the nature of the cost doesn't change when reimbursement is involved. keep learning, you will grow up one day, child
1
@acdc123456781 MikeW keeps drawing a blank when asked the other times a case like this has been prosecuted. For good reason
1
@mikew764 curious how the only "crimes" crooked Biden can pin on Trump are victimless crimes. curious how in NY criminals are released from custody all the time, but writing the words "legal expense" means long expensive trial and jail time. explains why NY has become such a sh**hole
1
@mikew764 so, here are just a few of the unanswered questions you have chosen not to tackle. 1. why does Merchan allow the witnesses to say whatever they wish about the defendant, but gags the defendant so that nothing can be said about the witnesses? 2. why did Bragg initially refuse to take up this case? what changed? 3. why would writing "legal expense" be a crime for Trump, but not for any other person who had an NDA arranged and listed it as "legal expense"? 4. Name one other person indicted and charged with the same "crime". How about you tackle those 4 first?
1
@mikew764 here's a simple question for you. If you pay your friend to pay his friend to fix your car, is it a crime to list that as an "automotive expense"? yes or no?
1
@MikeW165 you are the one that is clueless. it is past the statute of limitations. that is why Bragg had to claim, falsely, that the accounting misdemeanour was done to conceal a further crime, and thus he raised the charge to that of a felony. Of course, when asked what the concealed crime was, he said "I don't have to state that". Par for the course in the banana republic of New York. in NY, the current legal system (there is no justice system in NY) is such that Democrat prosecutors work with Democrat judges and Democrat juries to put whomever they want behind bars, and release whomever they want.
1
@MikeW165 all of the bias is on your side. read again what I said about Judge Cannon. And read what I said, not what you wanted me to say.
1
@mikew764 why shouldn't there be a gag order on the witnesses when only the witnesses are attacking the defendant?
1
@mikew764 STILL waiting for you to quote the statute that clearly says ONLY when a lawyer is on a retainer can his services be listed as a "legal expense". you do have the wording of the statute in front of you, right?
1
@mikew764 the supporting evidence would be the activities of Merchan's daughter, as repeatedly stated.
1
@mikew764 lawyers do FAR more than legal representation. among other things, lawyers draw up contracts, and paying a lawyer to draw up a contract is what happened in Trump's case, 100% legal expense.
1
@mikew764 what don't you understand about paying a lawyer to fix false claims made about you is 100% legal expense?
1
@mikew764 if I pay you not to talk about me, AND WE HAVE SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT TO TESTIFY TO SUCH A LEGAL AGREEMENT, then guess what, Einstein? The paying of the hush money is all part of a LEGAL AGREEMENT, and therefore is a LEGAL EXPENSE!
1
@mikew764 at the precise moment my wife has drawn up a legal document stipulating the conditions under which payments will be made, then it becomes a legal expense. you are wilfully confusing a hush money payment with the LEGAL process of establishing a contract for both parties to respect an NDA. The moment both parties sign that LEGAL document, it all becomes a legal expense. Capisce? one is a payment outside of a legal framework, the other is all within a legal framework. Trump's case is the second one, all legal, a legal expense.
1
@mikew764 only when you pay hush money that is not part of a legal arrangement.
1
@mikew764 the word is "recused", not "refused". As we say in French, "tu n'as pas inventé l'eau chaude"!
1
@mikew764 the problem is how a prosecutor decides which cases to pursue and which cases not to pursue. Only a rabid, partisan, biased, vindictive prosecutor would have chosen to pursue Trump's case, not a good prosecutor.
1
@mikew764 anyone with political views is linked to a political party. and whatever bias and political leaning is in the judge's head is a BIG problem when a presidential candidate and former president is the defendant. It's a massive problem.
1
@mikew764 donating obviously links you to a political party. a donation is an overt statement of your support for one party over another.
1
@mikew764 because now the Democrats have hijacked the legal system
1
@mikew764 it's not a crime, the world knows it, and you will be the one coping when Joe and Hunter are on trial for real crimes, Hunter in June!
1
@mikew764 You need to join my class on reading comprehension. I never said that I have no idea what New York law says. Re read exactly what I said. On the other hand, the silence is deafening when I ask you to cite the statute, word for word, that covers Trump's supposed crime!
1
@mikew764 no one is disputing that hush money was paid to women. but payment of hush money is 100% legal, and Trump is not charged with making hush money payments. try again.
1
@mikew764 Cohen (at least spell his name correctly, Einstein) indeed arranged hush money payments, and for his legal services in drawing up the arrangement he was paid legal expenses
1
@mikew764 projection
1
@mikew764 and neither does it make you below the law
1
@mikew764 the problem is taxpayers in NY should never have to cough up for a politically motivated trial where there is no crime.
1
@mikew764 on the contrary, the severity of a crime is often what decides if it goes to trial or not.
1
@mikew764 and you are doing all you can to put Trump below the law, so that he is in court when no one else would ever be subjected to such biased nonsense.
1
@mikew764 Trump being prosecuted in NY state is like Malcolm X being prosecuted in Jackson, MS 60 years ago.
1
@mikew764 because the case against them is so weak.
1
@mikew764 he may well be the first to be on trial for falsifying business records when he so clearly never falsified any business records.
1
@mikew764 having great fun hammering you with logic and truth. are you ready to quote the NY statutes that confirm what Trump did is a crime? off you go, start writing, the world is waiting, Einstein.
1
@mikew764 hush money payments are legal expenses when drawn up as part of a legal agreement.
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to cite the legal statute
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to cite the statute Trump violated
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to quote the legal statute Trump violated. If any prosecutor would take this case, why did Bragg refuse to take it first time around?
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to cite the statute Trump so clearly violated
1
@mikew764 Improve your reading skills to see what I actually said about NY law. still waiting for you to cite the relevant statutes.
1
@mikew764 projection. the bias is all on your end, and it's vindictive and ugly. still waiting for you to quote the statute Trump violated
1
@mikew764 he can't be acquitted with a biased judge and jury, that's the problem, Einstein, has nothing to do with the case.
1