Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ruairi77 said:
So the judge doesnt matter now?
Click to expand...
No, the judge CAN matter. I don't know whether this is a jury trial, I assume it will be. Delaware is something like 60% Dem at the last election. That's a huge ingrained advantage for any Dem defendant. Last election NY was massively Dem. That's a huge ingrained disadvantage for any Republican defendant. It's like trying a black man in Selma, 1962. You are not going to get a jury of 12 non-partisan peers.
 
dylsexicbleu said:
No, the judge CAN matter. I don't know whether this is a jury trial, I assume it will be. Delaware is something like 60% Dem at the last election. That's a huge ingrained advantage for any Dem defendant. Last election NY was massively Dem. That's a huge ingrained disadvantage for any Republican defendant. It's like trying a black man in Selma, 1962. You are not going to get a jury of 12 non-partisan peers.
Click to expand...
Trying Trump, a former democrat white christian in the city where he grew up does business and owns property and his main legal aid was the former mayor is like trying a black man in Selma in 1962??
I know you like wumming but your veering close to being desperately inappropriate in search of a tiny dopamine hit again.
 
Mad how people have spent 8 years twisting reality just to try to defend this Buffoon. No wonder they come across as unhinged, must be a headache having to constantly defend the indefensible.

All these complex interlinked belief in conspiracy, witch hunts, deep state machinations, and institution corruption have to be kept going, when it can be so easily explained by Trump being an obvious lying conman, who breaks the law cos he’s a billionaire who doesn’t think it applies to him.
 
Ruairi77 said:
Trying Trump, a former democrat white christian in the city where he grew up does business and owns property and his main legal aid was the former mayor is like trying a black man in Selma in 1962??
I know you like wumming but your veering close to being desperately inappropriate in search of a tiny dopamine hit again.
Click to expand...
Yes, a biased judge and a jury pool made up of those who are roughly 80% automatically opposed to you is a recipe for a tainted trial. The legal system will ultimately side with me, just as they concluded the Southern legal system was tainted against blacks.
 
The problem with a lot of these "Democrat states can't possibly prosecute Republican high profile politicians fairly" calls and their ilk (political witchhunts, electoral interference, so on) is that if you follow them to their endpoint then you end up never being able to prosecute such a defendant for anything. If you're accusing Democrat areas (counties, not states) of not being able to adjudicate impartially then you have to accept a similar case for Republican areas, the judges and juries in those places will be biased towards finding a Trump etc innocent. Are all high profile political trials supposed to happen in the most neutral of battleground counties/states, regardless of whether they have any link to the location and whether they occured under that judge's circuit?

And if "being a candidate in an election" is enough of a defence that prosecutors should back off or face accusations of inteference, then just declare your candidacy every time 1 day after the prior election to avoid going to trial ever (or at least until you win and get some level of immunity).

Yes, these are ridiculous situations to discuss, but they're where you end up when you start making the sort of baseless assumptions seen in the thread today. If the judges have been egregiously biased or incompentent then that would surely be grounds for an appeal. I know the immediate reaction from the Trump camp was they'd appeal, but it's not yet clear on what grounds they can, because there isn't a magic number of times he can 'truth' RIGGED when it suddenly becomes acceptable grounds for a legal challenge, a proper case has to be made.

This is the problem that Trump's team and supporters keep running up against - no matter the bullhorn he uses, his pronouncements don't overrule reality and the legal rules and procedures all US citizens are bound to.
 
Ruairi77 said:
Trumps lawyers could have rejected any of the jurors.
They could have called more witnesses
They could have let Trump testify on his own behalf
They did none of these things.

He was unanimously found guilty.
If you think thats rigged because the judge made a $15 donation 4 years ago, you should probably get your mental state checked.
Click to expand...


He must be judged fairly, by a jury of fat, moronic republicans and a judge Trump has selected himself. It's the only fair thing to do
 
dylsexicbleu said:
Yes, a biased judge and a jury pool made up of those who are roughly 80% automatically opposed to you is a recipe for a tainted trial. The legal system will ultimately side with me, just as they concluded the Southern legal system was tainted against blacks.
Click to expand...
5 of 12 voted for Trump in 2020. He just needed to convince one of them that he didnt break the law.
He couldn't.
edit - he didnt even have to convince one of them he didnt break the law, he just had to convince one of them that he might not have. He couldnt even do that.

This is nothing like Alabama in the 60's and to claim it is, or even think it is is to have no understanding of what black people suffered in this country in the 1960s. The vast majority of black people were not legally allowed to vote in Selma in 1962.

Maybe you're just racist.
 
In 2016 Hillary's campaign paid Christopher Steele for his dodgy dossier filing it under 'legal and compliance expenses'. The Steele dossier ultimately led to FISA warrants being issued against the Trump campaign. The FISA Court was not told this info came from the Clinton camp.

Hillary Clinton's campaign ultimately paid a small fine for illegally labelling the Steele payments as a legal expense. Yes, I'm meant to believe this prosecution of Trump(and possible jail time) was not politically motivated.
 
Prevenger17 said:
He must be judged fairly, by a jury of fat, moronic republicans and a judge Trump has selected himself. It's the only fair thing to do
Click to expand...

pZQ3oPV.png
 
dylsexicbleu said:
In 2016 Hillary's campaign paid Christopher Steele for his dodgy dossier filing it under 'legal and compliance expenses'. The Steele dossier ultimately led to FISA warrants being issued against the Trump campaign. The FISA Court was not told this info came from the Clinton camp.

Hillary Clinton's campaign ultimately paid a small fine for illegally labelling the Steele payments as a legal expense. Yes, I'm meant to believe this prosecution of Trump(and possible jail time) was not politically motivated.
Click to expand...
you can believe what ever you want.
Lardarse was found guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top