Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

may byen syure wrote:

Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:

The judge & prosecutor are democrats. The jury will be majority democrats. This is a political witch hunt from the get-go.

Cool.

I'm going with the assumption that it's possible for a Democrat to actually commit a crime in a jurisdiction in which the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge are Republicans. In a jury trial, it seems likely that the majority of members of the jury will be, too.

Similarly, and just going out on a limb here, it's possible for a Republican to actually commit a crime in a jurisdiction in which the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge are Democrats. In a jury trial, it seems likely that the majority of members of the jury will be, too.

Note that I haven't claimed to prove the soundness of this case. I've just said that "hey, they're all Democrats" is, at best, just one potential red flag worthy of checking out. It's far from real evidence. Just like hearing any words from an inveterate liar: I'm generally not predisposed to believing that guy, even if the people on the other side aren't uniformly honest. Just like having Elise Stefanik try to play the "hey [garbled logic], means this is a corrupt sham trail" gives her credibility a huge hit -- if you have actual reasons for this being a sham trial, go with those reasons instead of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

And you seem to pretend like you care about the truth, the law, what's right. Nah: You're backing your horse in the race. And that's all. Consider also that someone you don't like could go a-crimin as a candidate for high office. Part of what you're doing is trying to throw a series of arguments and establish a precedent that a person being a candidate is automatically grounds for not prosecuting criminal behavior.

Oh, and if you claim you're not doing that? Then just stick to the strongest, best arguments and don't try to come up with a caricature of the other side. If you're right, a sober evaluation of the facts will suffice.

Yessiree Bob wrote:

may byen syure wrote:

Cool.

I'm going with the assumption that it's possible for a Democrat to actually commit a crime in a jurisdiction in which the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge are Republicans. In a jury trial, it seems likely that the majority of members of the jury will be, too.

Similarly, and just going out on a limb here, it's possible for a Republican to actually commit a crime in a jurisdiction in which the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge are Democrats. In a jury trial, it seems likely that the majority of members of the jury will be, too.

Note that I haven't claimed to prove the soundness of this case. I've just said that "hey, they're all Democrats" is, at best, just one potential red flag worthy of checking out. It's far from real evidence. Just like hearing any words from an inveterate liar: I'm generally not predisposed to believing that guy, even if the people on the other side aren't uniformly honest. Just like having Elise Stefanik try to play the "hey [garbled logic], means this is a corrupt sham trail" gives her credibility a huge hit -- if you have actual reasons for this being a sham trial, go with those reasons instead of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

And you seem to pretend like you care about the truth, the law, what's right. Nah: You're backing your horse in the race. And that's all. Consider also that someone you don't like could go a-crimin as a candidate for high office. Part of what you're doing is trying to throw a series of arguments and establish a precedent that a person being a candidate is automatically grounds for not prosecuting criminal behavior.

Oh, and if you claim you're not doing that? Then just stick to the strongest, best arguments and don't try to come up with a caricature of the other side. If you're right, a sober evaluation of the facts will suffice.

Don't want to go to trial with democrat judge and prosecutor and majority democrat jury? Then don't commit crimes in a democrat dominated jurisdiction.

Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:

Link:pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/04/15/e...

[B["Considering we have a partisan prosecutor in a partisan jurisdiction, it's unlikely that Trump, a high-profile public figure, could possibly get a fair trial. But even CNN analyst Elie Honig admits that the case against Trump is weak."[/b]

The prosecution’s star witness is a convicted perjurer and fraudster who openly spews vitriol at the defendant, often in grotesque terms, essentially for a living.
The famously aggressive feds at the Southern District of New York passed on the case years ago, and current Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor could have indicted [Trump] before he left office but did not.
The charges are either misdemeanors or the lowest-level felonies (depending on how the jury decides the case), and the vast majority of defendants convicted of similar offenses are sentenced to probation and fines, not prison.