Sometimes, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees when being so argumentative and seeing things - and, in this case, reading and responding to comments - in such a superficial way.

I agree you have a problem. Maybe if you could stop yourself from trying to control everyone else's posts you could begin to get over it. :)

I think you'd be amazed, Kick, at the depth of discussion that could be had if only there was less mean-spirited knee-jerk reaction and more understanding and insightful curiosity.

I'd be really amazed if you could stop yourself from trying to control every other poster on the blog. However, you've proven repeatedly you can't control yourself, and it'll be a cold day in hell when you can control me. :)

Oh, really? How so?

So you're saying you already forgot? I really have no desire to refresh your memory regarding your repetitive trashing of this "ah, trial" (your term) considering your memory is demonstrably slipping.

If you're really interested, I remind you the forum is archived; you should avail yourself of re-reading your whiney posts. :)

I think you'd be amazed, Kick, at the depth of discussion that could be had if only there was less mean-spirited knee-jerk reaction and more understanding and insightful curiosity.

We should try it sometime!

Oh, really? How so?

Wow, Elizabeth. For someone who spent a lot of time shitting all over this case, you've sure done a 180.

I liked the use of the rain analogy, commonly used by judges when delivering their jury instructions, I understand. That analogy was very appropriate for this case in which there was bad news for a presidential candidate who wanted it to go away and was willing to pay a big sum to make it go away as to not hurt his campaign to win the presidency.

The crime was the falsifying of business records in order to cover up the payoff, and there was a mountain of paper evidence as well as testimony from multiple witnesses who were friends and employees of Trump.

I'm Joe Biden, and I'm fighting to save the earth from climate change.

If only that were true.

certainly possible. it was not an entirely insane risk though, given the number of people out there who genuinely believe the witch hunt narrative. all it would have taken was one, they just happened not to get one. part thorough juror vetting, part luck.

If I had to guess, it would be that Trump himself insisted that it be that way. Perhaps his ego wouldn't allow him to conceive of being convicted, or perhapshe felt that a conviction of a lesser charge would end up serving him less effectively in his campaign, but either way, a micromanager like him strikes me as the sort to insist on making such a decision for himself.

I liked the use of the rain analogy, commonly used by judges when delivering their jury instructions, I understand. That analogy was very appropriate for this case in which there was bad news for a presidential candidate who wanted it to go away and was willing to pay a big sum to make it go away as to not hurt his campaign to win the presidency. Actually, even with the new theories put forth by the prosecution to charge Trump with 34 felony counts, this was probably one of the least complicated cases ever. Hence the quick verdict against Trump.

Here's hoping that the everyday focus won't now be on the sentencing and appeals process ...