To paraphrase Yogi Berra: you can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan - the judges are too corrupt to be bought!
Does George Santos count as a tanTrump enabler or is he a pathological case all on its own? Never mind: gift article. (gee, that link is long! Crazy). From the heading of the article:
The scandal-plagued congressman, who ran on a life story littered with lies, was charged in a wide-ranging indictment with wire fraud, money laundering, stealing public funds and lying on federal disclosure forms.
The rest is also a beautiful read.
He appears to be a trump supporter. Whether he is a trump enabler, I don’t think a pathological liar like Santos could have gotten as far in politics as he has without there first having been a trump. So I guess maybe you could say that trump is a Santos enabler 
Perhaps Trump buds off these grifters like a coral or hydra. A Trumpsantos is then born.
Did the members of the jury lie during their voir dire, or did Trump’s lawyers fail to ask effective questions to determine prejudice? Did those same lawyer’s ever try for a change of venue on these grounds? Am I being whooshed?
You’re being whooshed. I was describing Trump’s ‘logic’. To make it shorter: [Trump] ‘If I do it, then it’s not illegal. If it is illegal, I can’t be tried for it because any evidence is fake and the trial is a witch hunt.’
She wasn’t his type, but he mistook her for one of his ex-wives in a photograph. So obviously he doesn’t marry women who aren’t his type, either.
don’t forget the very clear photo was blurry, because he can’t be seen wearing reading glasses.
Nixon was talking about the President. Trump means Himself, always and forever.
When Trump said we’d get tired of all the winning, I rolled my eyes but I didn’t know he’d be referring to all the winning against him in court. Also, not tired of it yet.
Good, because I have a feeling it is just getting started.
I’ve seen on Twitter how he will win his appeal:
Because NYC elected a prosecutor who ran on the platform of nailing Trump, that means that the entire city is biased against him. Because the entire city is biased against him, that means that the jury was automatically biased against him. Because the jury was biased against him, that means that he didn’t get a fair trial.
I’ve pointed out to these people that he had the opportunity to testify, and he declined to do it, so there was no real defense to be presented. And I’ve pointed out that he and his lawyers had the opportunity to file for a change of venue, and didn’t. Therefore, he has no legal leg to stand on concerning his appeal.
Want to hazard a guess as to how much they believed me?
But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
See (sea?) Otter knew how to make a goddamned point. It would be lost on the Twitterati.
But even he admitted they’d taken liberties with their female guests.
I would really like to see a tally of wins vs losses for all legal motions and cases involving Trump since the 2020 election. The cockles of my heart could use a good warming
I think those tallies should include the court cases from all his minions like the Proud Dipshits and Oathbreakers that had their “peaceful tour” on 1/6.
Otter, who was pre-law (or was it pre-med…?), was a better lawyer in the movie than most of Trump’s suited idjits are in reality.
What’s the difference?