hang it all out wrote:
Trump did not even know what the charges were in this rigged case. He is entitled to specifity like anyone else. There was no crime.
The judge and his lawyers explained the charges to him. If he's too stupid to understand, that's his problem.
Good for America wrote:
hang it all out wrote:
Trump did not even know what the charges were in this rigged case. He is entitled to specifity like anyone else. There was no crime.
The judge and his lawyers explained the charges to him. If he's too stupid to understand, that's his problem.
What it comes down to is that he's been charged with not being a politician, and standing up to the swamp/establishment. M@g@ 4 life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
Good for America wrote:
The judge and his lawyers explained the charges to him. If he's too stupid to understand, that's his problem.
What it comes down to is that he's been charged with not being a politician, and standing up to the swamp/establishment. M@g@ 4 life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nOt A pOliTiCiAn. The guy has run for office 4 times.
Good for America wrote:
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
What it comes down to is that he's been charged with not being a politician, and standing up to the swamp/establishment. M@g@ 4 life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nOt A pOliTiCiAn. The guy has run for office 4 times.
You probably think he's a rapist too
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
Good for America wrote:
nOt A pOliTiCiAn. The guy has run for office 4 times.
You probably think he's a rapist too
You bet. He couldn't prove he wasn't in the defamation case that he lost.
How does it feal to spend the whole day defending a convicted felon, rapist?
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
Good for America wrote:
nOt A pOliTiCiAn. The guy has run for office 4 times.
You probably think he's a rapist too
A jury found that Trump was liable for sexual abuse.
Is a win in your eyes? He wasn't found liable for rape, only sexual abuse?
Let's cut to the nut, shall we?
The alleged falsification did not occur until 2017 - after the election that the allgedly falsification was supposedly unlawfully influenced occurred.
The Democrats got 12 non-legal minds to agree upon made up "facts" concerning a crime that never happened.
Complete political prosecution and election interference. Alvin Bragg should face charges.
hang it all out wrote:
Let's cut to the nut, shall we?
The alleged falsification did not occur until 2017 - after the election that the allgedly falsification was supposedly unlawfully influenced occurred.
The Democrats got 12 non-legal minds to agree upon made up "facts" concerning a crime that never happened.
Complete political prosecution and election interference. Alvin Bragg should face charges.
Should we not have trials by jury? Juries will generally not be made up of legal minds.
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
Good for America wrote:
nOt A pOliTiCiAn. The guy has run for office 4 times.
You probably think he's a rapist too
Well, the fact is that he is an adjudicated sexual abuser, and the judge said that "as we commonly use the term rape," he committed a rape.
Getting into politics wrote:
hang it all out wrote:
Let's cut to the nut, shall we?
The alleged falsification did not occur until 2017 - after the election that the allgedly falsification was supposedly unlawfully influenced occurred.
The Democrats got 12 non-legal minds to agree upon made up "facts" concerning a crime that never happened.
Complete political prosecution and election interference. Alvin Bragg should face charges.
Should we not have trials by jury? Juries will generally not be made up of legal minds.
"12 non-legal minds" is what the Trumpers are going to throw out there, in spite of the FACT that there were TWO LAWYERS on the jury?
That's a lot more "legal minds" than most juries, almost certainly, and the jury system is still a cornerstone of our system of justice.
And who had an equal say in who served on that jury? Ah, that would be THE DEFENSE.
My God, the depth of the stupid...
Trump will be leading USA again, that is a definite and if it's definite it's scripted.
Good for America wrote:
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
You probably think he's a rapist too
You bet. He couldn't prove he wasn't in the defamation case that he lost.
How does it feal to spend the whole day defending a convicted felon, rapist?
Convicted felon now, not a rapist. It's great!!! M@g@ forever
RossiCheated wrote:
Glitter Bomb Turbo wrote:
You probably think he's a rapist too
Well, the fact is that he is an adjudicated sexual abuser, and the judge said that "as we commonly use the term rape," he committed a rape.
Not a rapist then haha
RossiCheated wrote:
Getting into politics wrote:
Should we not have trials by jury? Juries will generally not be made up of legal minds.
"12 non-legal minds" is what the Trumpers are going to throw out there, in spite of the FACT that there were TWO LAWYERS on the jury?
That's a lot more "legal minds" than most juries, almost certainly, and the jury system is still a cornerstone of our system of justice.
And who had an equal say in who served on that jury? Ah, that would be THE DEFENSE.
My God, the depth of the stupid...
Well, obviously his lawyer is a deep state plant. /sarcasm
Getting into politics wrote:
hang it all out wrote:
Let's cut to the nut, shall we?
The alleged falsification did not occur until 2017 - after the election that the allgedly falsification was supposedly unlawfully influenced occurred.
The Democrats got 12 non-legal minds to agree upon made up "facts" concerning a crime that never happened.
Complete political prosecution and election interference. Alvin Bragg should face charges.
Should we not have trials by jury? Juries will generally not be made up of legal minds.
I notice that you dodged the issue of there being no felony because the alleged falsification occurred after the election.
hang it all out wrote:
Getting into politics wrote:
Should we not have trials by jury? Juries will generally not be made up of legal minds.
I notice that you dodged the issue of there being no felony because the alleged falsification occurred after the election.
I was asking for a clarification after you talked about the jury being tricked, but you dodged that.
Getting into politics wrote:
hang it all out wrote:
I notice that you dodged the issue of there being no felony because the alleged falsification occurred after the election.
I was asking for a clarification after you talked about the jury being tricked, but you dodged that.
The jury was told that there was a felony when none was committed.
That is called misleading, if not flat out lying.
hang it all out wrote:
Getting into politics wrote:
I was asking for a clarification after you talked about the jury being tricked, but you dodged that.
The jury was told that there was a felony when none was committed.
That is called misleading, if not flat out lying.
See! that wasn't that hard, instead of attacking me you just had to explain what you meant since it was not clear.
hang it all out wrote:
Getting into politics wrote:
Should we not have trials by jury? Juries will generally not be made up of legal minds.
I notice that you dodged the issue of there being no felony because the alleged falsification occurred after the election.
You people are so soft you cannot even answer a question.
1 post was removed from this page.