An Old Video Emerges of the Judge in Trump’s Fraud Case, Uncovering Disturbing Revelations

[American Girl]

Yep, nothing to see. This man will surely get a fair trial.
This is infuriating!

That video should be enough to throw the case out or demand a different judge of the defendant's choice

https://defiantamerica.com/an-old-video-emerges-of-the-judge-in-trumps-fraud-case-uncovering-disturbing-revelations/

[jmyrlefuller]

Ah, the art of the ad hominem fallacy, the Trump campaign's calling card.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Wait a minute.  Exactly what did the judge say in that video that was so disturbing or out of bounds?  I watched the whole thing and didn't see it.

The part where he's talking about the ability to toss a civil verdict that he doesn't think is supported by the evidence -- a jnov or "judgment not withstanding the verdict" is an accepted part of the rules of civil procedure in both state and federal court.  They happen with some frequency.  So what else was there?

[LMAO]

Wait a minute.  Exactly what did the judge say in that video that was so disturbing or out of bounds?  I watched the whole thing and didn't see it.

I’ve learned to be very suspicious of the links this “American Girl” posts

They leave a lot of pertinent information out and their new sources I’ve never heard of

They contain little snippets of information that you have to search for in other sources to put the complete puzzle together

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I’ve learned to be very suspicious of the links this “American Girl” posts

You and me both.

The weird part about it is that jnov's only apply in jury trials.  Since Trump's case is being tried to the bench without a jury, the issue of a jnov doesn't even apply.

[Cyber Liberty]

If this "Judge" has a history of legally attacking the Defendant in a trial, it's important we know his bias.  That is hardly an Ad Hominem attack.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If this "Judge" has a history of legally attacking the Defendant in a trial, it's important we know his bias.  That is hardly an Ad Hominem attack.

Where did that happen in that video?

[Cyber Liberty]

Where did that happen in that video?

It wasn't what was in the old video, I am referring to comments he makes today.  He is insanely biased against all things Trump.  Did you see the video of the Judge right before he started this trial?  The grinning, the laughing?

This is not a serious person.

If you think this is a fair trial, then say so.

[Kamaji]

It wasn't what was in the old video, I am referring to comments he makes today.  He is insanely biased against all things Trump.  Did you see the video of the Judge right before he started this trial?  The grinning, the laughing?

This is not a serious person.

If you think this is a fair trial, then say so.

Why would that indicate any sort of bias?  What is he supposed to do, wear a somber frown all the time?

[Cyber Liberty]

Why would that indicate any sort of bias?  What is he supposed to do, wear a somber frown all the time?

He could say he would find the case on the preponderance of evidence, or he could claim he can decide to use his emotions to decide the case. He already said his emotions will come first.

I don't know if you consider that "bias," but IANAL, and I think it's wrong.  But that's just me.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Why would that indicate any sort of bias?  What is he supposed to do, wear a somber frown all the time?

That’s Trump’s MO.

[Kamaji]

He could say he would find the case on the preponderance of evidence, or he could claim he can decide to use his emotions to decide the case. He already said his emotions will come first.

I don't know if you consider that "bias," but IANAL, and I think it's wrong.  But that's just me.

So far, his rulings have been on the law, not on his emotions.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It wasn't what was in the old video, I am referring to comments he makes today.

And I was just referring to the particular video and post that is the subject of this thread.

This is not a serious person.

He may well be kind of goofy, but that isn't going to get him booted off the case.

If you think this is a fair trial, then say so.

I think the entire prosecution was targeted and bogus. 

But I haven't followed the trial itself closely enough to say whether or not there has been specific judicial unfairness.

[Cyber Liberty]

We will see.  I think there is a 100% chance this Judge will find a reason to convict.  Just my own biased opinion here, and I hope I am wrong.

[Kamaji]

We will see.  I think there is a 100% chance this Judge will find a reason to convict.  Just my own biased opinion here, and I hope I am wrong.

One does not "convict" in a civil case.  One is either held liable, or not.

I'm reasonably certain that Trump has already given the judge more than enough reasons to find him liable, at the very least under Exec. Law 63(12).

BTW, if one wants to see the evidence that was obtained from Trump during discovery, a lot of it is available on the NY e-courts website as exhibits and attachments to various pleadings.