Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 596
Except there appears a lack of state witnesses.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Donald Trump 2024
- Thread starter Zeberdi
- Start date
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 596
It may well be.
Not judging by the number of jurors unable to be on the panel because they can't stand the guy. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/17/donald-trump-jury-selection-jurors-speak-out
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 596
Except it isn't. None of these charges have precedence. We live in a country that uses case law where each charge is reference by the previous trial as a guide to guilt, sentencing etc like the USA. Even the charge relating to the Classified Documents had previous offenders but no charges. If you cant see this as a fit up job i cant help you.
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 596
Its a democrat stronghold, what where you expecting.
The current trial is mainly about falsifying documents. A pretty standard offence, and pretty standard prosecution normally - hundreds a year. It's only because it's Trump we're hearing about it.
Because the offenders co-operated and returned the documents. Rather than lying about them, and secretly trying to move them.
There is nothing standard about this prosecution. Read the article and try to comprehend the lengths these twisted b*stards are going to turn a misdemeanor, at best, into a felony. And yes, it’s only because it’s Trump.
Bragg’s absurd case against Trump finally gets its undeserved day in court
Donald Trump's ridiculous court case is finally heading to trial. Progressive DA Bragg is counting on a liberal judge and an anti-Trump jury to cover for fact he has no case.
www.foxnews.com
- Oct 20, 2022
- 4,909
- Thread starter
- #3,009
Others have jumped in and answered your response to my post above but I’ll answer you myself anyway -( as I’m sure you knew I would
)The reason imo why many of the charges have no precedence is this is the first time in American history that criminal charges have been brought against an ex-American President for crimes he committed while President including interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. It is the first time the issues of complete immunity for ex-Presidents has been tested by the courts against the interpretation of the Constitution.
These cases raise all sorts of precedence, including how Trump himself is responding to the charges.
He is so narcissistic he does not even realise the legal jeopardy he could put himself in if he insists on taking the stand, which apparently he wants to - the gloves will be off and all sorts of prior behaviour and previous allegations will be thrown at him to discredit him as a reliable witness in his own case. He thinks he will be able to take the stand and use it like one of his podiums at a campaign rally. He won’t be able to and if he tries, the Judge will tear him into shreds.
Evidence of Prior Convictions: Admissible Against Defendants Who Testify?
Some defendants who testify run the risk of the jury learning about their criminal record.
www.nolo.com
As for vexatious or spurious charges, I see the Republicans’ attempt to get two articles of impeachment through the Senate against Mayorkas fell flat on its face today - guess they are just not as good as this impeachment stuff as the Dems
The GOP-controlled House fails to impeach the homeland security secretary. What could come next?
The House falls short in their effort to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary over the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border — at least for now.
apnews.com
Last edited:
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,902
The American Constitution was put together by a group of people who could not envisage the arrival of a, Assault Rifles and b, a president who has no honour, ethics or moral code, and who will shamelessly take advantage of a system built on honesty.Others have jumped in and answered your response to my post above but I’ll answer you myself anyway -( as I’m sure you knew I would
The reason imo why many of the charges have no precedence is this is the first time in American history that criminal charges have been brought against an ex-American President for crimes he committed while President including interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. It is the first time the issues of complete immunity for ex-Presidents has been tested by the courts against the interpretation of the Constitution.
These cases raise all sorts of precedence, including how Trump himself is responding to the charges.
He is so narcissistic he does not even realise the legal jeopardy he could put himself in if he insists on taking the stand, which apparently he wants to - the gloves will be off and all sorts of prior behaviour and previous allegations will be thrown at him to discredit him as a reliable witness in his own case. He thinks he will be able to take the stand and use it like one of his podiums at a campaign rally. He won’t be able to and if he tries, the Judge will tear him into shreds.
Evidence of Prior Convictions: Admissible Against Defendants Who Testify?
Some defendants who testify run the risk of the jury learning about their criminal record.
As for vexatious or spurious charges, I see the Republicans’ attempt to get two articles of impeachment through the Senate against Mayorkas fell flat on its face today - guess they are just not as good as this impeachment stuff as the Dems
The GOP-controlled House fails to impeach the homeland security secretary. What could come next?
The House falls short in their effort to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary over the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border — at least for now.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
That article reads as an opinion piece and is rather vague on the facts, it doesn't specify which charges the author thinks are incorrect (There is nothing standard about this prosecution. Read the article and try to comprehend the lengths these twisted b*stards are going to turn a misdemeanor, at best, into a felony. And yes, it’s only because it’s Trump.
Bragg’s absurd case against Trump finally gets its undeserved day in court
Donald Trump's ridiculous court case is finally heading to trial. Progressive DA Bragg is counting on a liberal judge and an anti-Trump jury to cover for fact he has no case.
I was hoping for something a little more persuasive of your position.
* I've struck through part of the above as it was factually incorrect - the charges tossed were in the Georgia election interference case, not the New York hush money case.
Last edited:
tedebear
Legal Alien
There is nothing standard about this prosecution. Read the article and try to comprehend the lengths these twisted b*stards are going to turn a misdemeanor, at best, into a felony. And yes, it’s only because it’s Trump.
Bragg’s absurd case against Trump finally gets its undeserved day in court
Donald Trump's ridiculous court case is finally heading to trial. Progressive DA Bragg is counting on a liberal judge and an anti-Trump jury to cover for fact he has no case.
and fox news is an impartial or credible source? That article reads like its written by someone on Trumps team. This NY prosecution is correct and is around falisfying business records. ie were payments made to Stormy Daniels as hush money, run through his business as legal expenses, 34 times. Fairly straightforward question of law if you ask me. If it occured in this country or to someone of similar wealth and stature you would be more than happy to see them tested in court too, I don't see your deliniation.
You can call the prosecutor any name you like, and regurgitate soundbites Trump has given you, especially the one he's fed you that "people are only after him as he's Trump", but Trump creates this circus, he generates these soundbites, he feeds you the lies so many times you think they are truths, he creates this noise that you repeat.....hopefully the only way down for this man is to play him at his own game....which is what is happening here....There is no place in society for someone like this. None. He is devisive, lying, mysogynistic and a fool courting those disengaged enough to join his circus. The largest shame is that people are hoodwinked by him and think he represents them. More alarming is we as a society are allowing our children and young people to see behaviour like this. We see insurrection, disprespect of social and government institutions (capital hill), manipulation of the supreme court and most legal constructs, disrespect of people (buildng a wall), women (you pull them by their p*ssies) and womens bodies (roe vs wade) and if this trial and subsequent ones prove it, breaking of the law. For some to accept that all that is ok, in the name of something larger, is the biggest shame here, when it is far far far from ok and will take generations if ever to recover from.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Well said.
Gregg Jarrett the writer has always been one of Trump's most vociferous supporters on Fox. He also has double standards when it comes to Trump and his attitude to others who he believes have committed crimes.
For instance Jarrett called for a grand jury for Hillary Clinton over her email controversy, but a day later, when a grand jury was impaneled in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, Jarrett said that grand juries were an "undemocratic farce".
US Seagull
Well-known member
People keep saying he's orange is FAKE NEWS!!!
He's more yellow.
...wait, can syphilis cause jaundice?
I'm starting a rumor now.
He's more yellow.
...wait, can syphilis cause jaundice?
I'm starting a rumor now.
Yes, of course Fox News is a credible source, every bit as much as CNN, NY Times, etc. You’re still missing the point though. First off, the statute of limitations had already expired, they somehow conspired to extend it. Secondly, they are turning a misdemeanor into an as yet unspecified felony, which is not in the state’s jurisdiction to do so. The case had already been tossed out by the FEC, the DOJ, and the previous Manhattan DA, as there just wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute it.
Another opinion, by someone who loathes Trump, his former AG.
Former AG Barr rips 'political' Trump hush money case, says 'real threat' to democracy is progressive left
Former Attorney General Bill Barr warned the left is "perverting the system of justice" with their "abomination" of a case against former President Donald Trump.
www.foxnews.com
tedebear
Legal Alien
Yes, of course Fox News is a credible source, every bit as much as CNN, NY Times, etc. You’re still missing the point though. First off, the statute of limitations had already expired, they somehow conspired to extend it. Secondly, they are turning a misdemeanor into an as yet unspecified felony, which is not in the state’s jurisdiction to do so. The case had already been tossed out by the FEC, the DOJ, and the previous Manhattan DA, as there just wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute it.
Another opinion, by someone who loathes Trump, his former AG.
Former AG Barr rips 'political' Trump hush money case, says 'real threat' to democracy is progressive left
Former Attorney General Bill Barr warned the left is "perverting the system of justice" with their "abomination" of a case against former President Donald Trump.
The statute stops if someone is continuously out of New York, and at the time he was in the White House. The point of argue will be the interpretation of the term continuous...a precedent was set in 1999 that this meant not continuous in length, but continuous in aggregation of days, Trump will argue even though he was Preseidnet his residence was New York. It will be an interesting finding. Suggesting there is a conspiracy here to extend the statute, is just bonkers. Its simply a point of law.
No it isn't.
US Seagull
Well-known member
I just read something related to this that Mr Trump might not have considered before sending out his extortion attempt.
There are individual limits to how much you can give a candidate per election cycle. If somebody gave the max to Trump directly, then also gave to say, Matt Gaetz, and they had to kick 5% back, then they will have violated election laws (again)