More Legal Issues for Trump.

[JBP55]

MSN

 

[sil-40]

I'm only 1/4 of the way through the filing but I've read a couple of pundit's "key takeaways". The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of revolutionary information that wasn't suspected or known. The damning part is only damning when you take a step back and you put it together into one picture. The public has become desensitized to salacious accusations being hurled around daily but this is a legal filing that has to be backed up by evidence/testimony. Smith didn't pull nonsense from thin air and post it on Twitter. The standard bar of our federal courts still mean something even if you don't agree with indictment. My fear is that the people that NEED to read this, won't and the ones that WILL read this, didn't need any further evidence to believe DJT belongs behind bars.

For those interested: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0.pdf

 

[hotbiggun]

Trump is also a agent of russia, stole state secrets from the white house, started a insurrection, raped women, killed millions of Jews, is responsible for global climate change, killed 1000s of women by ending abortion, etc etc etc.
Thing is the leftist have been using this tactic for decades. Nothing new here

 

[sil-40]

Except that's not what this thread is about (some of those are true, btw). It's "tactics" when a Republican is held accountable for breaking the law and "good ol' fashioned justice" when Democrats are. You can take your double standard and go home.

 

[Bolt Head]

 

[hotbiggun]

Exactly. These people need to be jailed and never allowed to be in government. Swamp rats

 

[Magdump]

View attachment 174175View attachment 174176View attachment 174177View attachment 174178View attachment 174179View attachment 174180View attachment 174181

I see Nancy and Hillary, but who are those other swamp creatures?

 

[CatCam]

Seems to have a lot in common with what happened in Russia when Alexei Navalny spoke out against the machine. All of the civil, criminal and two impeachments against Trump seem parallel with how the Putin-run Russian government treated Alexei Navalny. Yes, there are people in Russia who support the government prosecution of the late Alexei Navalny. It should not surprise anyone when these examples of Trump's innate evilness are brought up time after time. Fortunately, most people clearly see that these are simply political attempts to eliminate a political enemy. If there was any validity in these arguments, Trump would have been long gone from the political scene.

Alexei Navalny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sil-40]

If Donald Trump's lawyers had not been able to delay his trials, he would have been long gone from the political scene. If he were treated like the private citizen he is, like all of us are, those trials would have already happened. I don't blame Donald Trump's defense by delay...in fact the opposite. I blame our federal court systems for allowing it to happen and yielding to him in the first place. This would have been the best possible outcome for the republican party, in my opinion. It would have allowed them to nominate a sane candidate that would have been more marketable to a larger majority of the country.

Facts are, he was found indictable by a grand jury using evidence. The reality that he has not yet been held accountable for the laws he broke is saddening but the reason they keep coming up in the first place is because, eventually, you can't kick the can down the road anymore.

 

[jdindadell]

As damning as this "evidence" may end up being, I would still rather have orange man in office come January. Another 4 yrs of failure under the current "admin" may be too much to bear...

 

[hotbiggun]

If Donald Trump's lawyers had not been able to delay his trials, he would have been long gone from the political scene. If he were treated like the private citizen he is, like all of us are, those trials would have already happened. I don't blame Donald Trump's defense by delay...in fact the opposite. I blame our federal court systems for allowing it to happen and yielding to him in the first place. This would have been the best possible outcome for the republican party, in my opinion. It would have allowed them to nominate a sane candidate that would have been more marketable to a larger majority of the country.

Facts are, he was found indictable by a grand jury using evidence. The reality that he has not yet been held accountable for the laws he broke is saddening but the reason they keep coming up in the first place is because, eventually, you can't kick the can down the road anymore.

Lets not forget the IQ Level of the grand jury chosen by the democrats

Trump grand juror gives smiling, laughing media tour about possible indictments | Fox News Video

Emily Kohrs, the foreperson of the special Fulton County (Ga.) grand jury investigating alleged illegal meddling in the 2020 election, gave gleeful interviews to CNN and MSNBC that left some legal observers scratching their heads.

www.foxnews.com

 

[sil-40]

Lets not forget the IQ Level of the grand jury chosen by the democrats

Trump grand juror gives smiling, laughing media tour about possible indictments | Fox News Video

Emily Kohrs, the foreperson of the special Fulton County (Ga.) grand jury investigating alleged illegal meddling in the 2020 election, gave gleeful interviews to CNN and MSNBC that left some legal observers scratching their heads.

www.foxnews.com

Average intelligence amongst a jury of our peers is a critique I won't disagree with you about. But "chosen by the democrats" though...that's not how jury selections works. They aren't hand-picked by anyone. If you've ever been called for jury duty, it's roughly the same process. A jury of Donald Trump's peers found the evidence against him worthy of a trial. Nothing more. Nothing less.

jdindadell, I respect your opinion.

 

[Emperor]

I see Nancy and Hillary, but who are those other swamp creatures?

Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, & the ghost of Harry Reid.

 

[CatCam]

God forbid anyone question the integrity of our electoral system................

 

[hotbiggun]

God forbid anyone question the integrity of our electoral system................

Lol. That crazy democrat jury foreman is a text book example of someone who should have been dismissed early on in the selection process. But there she is on CNN, giddy about the idea of indicting Trump. The democraps are out of control.

 

[sil-40]

I'm almost afraid to ask but...what does an "electoral system" have to do with this legal filing, Trump's indictment or grand jury selection?

 

[hotbiggun]

I'm almost afraid to ask but...what does an "electoral system" have to do with this legal filing, Trump's indictment or grand jury selection?

Trump was indicted in Georgia for questioning the outcome of the gerogia election.

 

[sil-40]

Ah ok..I'm with you now. He's not accused of "questioning". He's accused of actively conspiring with others to overturn it. 4 people have already pled guilty in the Georgia case.

 

[jdindadell]

Average intelligence amongst a jury of our peers is a critique I won't disagree with you about. But "chosen by the democrats" though...that's not how jury selections works. They aren't hand-picked by anyone. If you've ever been called for jury duty, it's roughly the same process. A jury of Donald Trump's peers found the evidence against him worthy of a trial. Nothing more. Nothing less.

jdindadell, I respect your opinion.

And I respect yours.

Not really related (when did that matter on bayoushooter!) but the whole "peer" thing always rubbed me the wrong way.

As defined by dem internets: A peer is some one of equal standing with another person, especially if they are in the same age group, social group or grade level.

I could make a solid argument that the person shown in that video is not one of Trumps "peers". Not that I care that much about trump and his problems, but if I was standing trial I would want a group of my peers to be the ones passing judgement as they would likely be the most likely group to understand me and my situation.

So as a middle aged white guy, who owns a business and is married with one kid, i would need to find 12 of the same type of guy. a pregnant 20 year old Hindu woman would not be a "peer" of mine... No woman would be a peer, unemployed man would not be a peer, non-business owner would not be my peer, unmarried person would not be my peer, and the list goes on... In fact, finding suitable peers would be tricky, not even most of my friends would qualify as peers.

Not sure if that makes any sense, but the peer thing always sounded like a "pie in the sky" concept that could not be applied correctly.

 

[sil-40]

Nah I know what you mean and, when used in that way, I understand the point you're making. In the end, it's just semantics. It's not meant to be defined as a jury of your peers but a jury of OUR peers as citizens of a city/state/country. It's like a pedophile deciding that his peers are definitely not men or women that have children (or people with a halfway functioning moral compass) and that his peers are sex criminals...luckily that's not how our system works. The way it's defined is less about being our equal in regards to age, race, socio-economic standing, religion, etc. and more about our equal as a citizen.

Either way you slice it, it's absolutely an ideal that is imperfect and it's applied improperly all the time. During jury trial selection, lawyers get preemptory challenges to exclude certain jurors for any reason they deem won't help their case. Voir dire is important, on paper, to weed out jurors who might not be able to be impartial but we all know it's not always used like that every time. In the end, though, it's part of our constitution and it's the system we got..for better and for worse.