Judge Judy Says Trump's NYC Hush Money Trial Was "Nonsense"
And She "Resents" It As A Taxpayer
Tyler Durden
 There's going to be a lot of conflicted daytime TV viewers who count both The View and Judge Judy in their daily lineup after this one...
One of Manhattan's favorite judges, TV icon Judge Judy Sheindlin, weighed in on Donald Trump's criminal "hush money" trial last week in an interview with Chris Wallace, calling the spectacle "nonsense".
Sheindlin, known for her show "Judge Judy," discussed former President Trump's recent felony conviction with CNN's Wallace. Sheindlin, a Brooklyn native, expressed her disapproval of Trump's Manhattan prosecution.
"Trump was indicted in 4 separate cases," Wallace asked Judy. "Is that the justice system working?"
She responded to Wallace: “I would be happier as someone who owns property in Manhattan, if the district attorney of New York County would take care of criminals who are making it impossible for citizens to walk in the streets and use the subway..."
"...to use his efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend 5 million or ten million of taxpayers money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense,” she continued.
"I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement," she said.
The former family court judge, who is known for being ruthless on the stand, said that even she couldn't figure out what the charges against Trump were: “You had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was, he doesn’t like [Trump].”
"I think he was a good businessman, a real estate guy, and he was certainly terrific on The Apprentice," Judy is seen saying in the clip.
Despite this, Judy isn't all sold on Trump, telling Wallace: “I don’t think that Donald ever should have been president, and I don’t think that even Donald thought he was going to be president.”
 our mission:
to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.
...responsibly used.
The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.
www.zerohedge.com
| 
