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

[Blue 1]

 

[Zatara]

Express fake surprise all you wish in reply to this @Zatara but, let's be honest here. You cannot be so slow as to presume person X is fundamentally incapable of sitting in legal judgment of person Y due to a characteristic of X that is different than Y, be that political, sex, race, religion, or other.

I cant believe you're so naive.

Zat, the judge doesnt finalize the jury selection or decide the outcome.
He also likely has deplorable characters in front of him all the time, from rapists to murderers and he knows he has to remain impartial. That's his job. The actions of his daughter are completely irrelevant.

He knows he 'should' remain impartial. Do you honestly think he was impartial? It didnt look like it to me.

It's ok to say that, you know? I've taken legal action before and the judges clearly werent impartial. I wont go into that but, when you go down these roads...reality can be different.

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.

There's not an endless supply of jurors and those are going to be leaning against trump due to the place their from -- it's like picking out RS fans to sit on the PSR decision making process.

Putting Trump on the stand does what? It opens himself up for the prosecution to manipulate and poke him (as the trial frequently attempted to do) for a reaction. This was the prosecutors domain, not trumps.

If he wasnt convicted, then the judgd, jury and prosecution would not be able to show their faces with confidence amongst their peers. Attend an event or party and of course they would be known as the failures "that let trump go".

Just look at their mate Bob yelling in the street.

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.

I see you're neutral. He could be Darth Vader but he should be given the same treatment as Biden when on a prssidential campaign -- hes been setup here during the process. There should be a choice for voters to vote for him or Biden under the same conditions...its unfair.

If this had been against biden under a trump administration, it also would not be fair.

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.

Both the 'inflated' building valuations and the above are both 'normal' as both can be seen to have been non-punishable in reality (despjte what the law states).

The democrats have weaponised both to attack trump. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.

If trump wins i wonder if he goes after democrats in the same manner or gives them a pass...

you can believe what ever you want.
Lardarse was found guilty.

Is that a direct quote from the judge?

$200 million in donations to the Trump campaign since the guilty verdict. 30% of donors had never previously donated to Trump. This, I think, correlates with my argument that his base is now motivated beyond belief. But hey, Dems wanted a few cheap headlines at Trump's expense.

The 30% is as expected. They will see an unfair attempt at distorting the election.

Send me your money, I guarantee your path through the pearly gates.


Older than time itself.

Hunter? Is that you?

The defense also went with an odd strategy. They made statements that the jury probably thought were outright lies - "Trump never slept with Stormy Daniel's or Karen McDougal".

If you are clearly going to lie about one item of the case you badly damage your credibility that you are telling the truth in another.

Irrc in John Edward's case his lawyers went with "yeah, it was a sleazy affair and gross but he didn't do anything criminal".

If that was true, then the jury would not be impartial.

You only had to see the performance the pornstar put on to see her attitude had suddenly changed since previous trials.

Shes a pornstar and apparently the neutral jury believed that she was about to pass out due to trumps vigerous thrusting?

I mean come on lol That story has changed so much shes gone from being a sex worker to a nun

 

[Walken]

Yeah but how is NYC doing since the cafe in Seinfeld ins't on the TV?

 

[TN Toffee]

$200 million in donations to the Trump campaign since the guilty verdict. 30% of donors had never previously donated to Trump. This, I think, correlates with my argument that his base is now motivated beyond belief. But hey, Dems wanted a few cheap headlines at Trump's expense.

With regard to the actual election, it doesn’t matter how motivated his base is. The math doesn’t exist where they alone can send him back to the White House, as they represent AT MOST 30-35% of the people who will be going to the polls in November. There's a huge number of people who just won't be bothered with voting no matter what, probably another 10-15% that will vote for him just because he's this year's nominee for Team Red, and about 50% who simply aren't having him and would never consider voting for him under any circumstances.

He has to do something to persuade the small slice of voters who are still on the fence (I still don’t understand how such a person exists now that he’s such a known quantity after 9 years), and being convicted of 34 felony counts isn’t likely to move their needle in the right direction. I know you said a lot of this week's donors were first timers, but that's still probably just people from his hardcore base who hadn't yet gotten sucked into the grift.

However, his base foaming at the mouth more than ever does give me concern about the prospects of serious political violence between now and Inauguration Day early next year.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Everyone i met there did tell me before going to have my wits about me

Surprised you made it out alive in that case.

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

Surprised you made it out alive in that case.

The man's taken a punch to the heart, he's a warrior.

 

[BlueTX]

I cant believe you're so naive.

I cannot believe you are still peddling the idea your original comment was serious instead of recognizing how ignorant it was or just quietly slinking away.

I mean, you are in Asia and non-Asian, right? How in the world could you possibly receive a fair trial if prosecuted? Like that Colombian fellow sitting in judgment of Trump...

 

[Goat]

Stolen from Reddit.


Trump Delusion Syndrome at play. Anything they do is good anything liberals do is bad. Trump could be raping their daughter in front of them and over 90% of them would find a way to justify it. Meanwhile teaching their daughter that just because someone is lgbtq doesnt make them evil, is highest form of corruption and damage possible.

No matter what these cultists will never break the hold over their false prophet that is the epitome of seven sins.

Trump is the biggest Traitor to the United States and Its People. He is a convicted criminal and surrounds himself with other criminals because he wants to commit crimes.

His Campaign Chairman is a Convicted Felon.

His Deputy Campaign Manager is a Convicted Felon.

His Personal Laywer is a Convicted Felon.

His Chief Strategist is a Convicted Felon.

His National Security Advisor is a Convicted Felon.

His Trade Advisor is a Convicted Felon.

His Foreign Policy Advisor is a Convicted Felon.

His Campaign Fixer is a Convicted Felon.

& His Company CFO is a Convicted Felon.

And NOW He Himself is a Convicted Felon.

BUT HES INNOCENT ITS A WITCHHUNT!

They're all felons. His personally picked felons.

"Judge By The Company You Keep"

 

[Zatara]

With regard to the actual election, it doesn’t matter how motivated his base is. The math doesn’t exist where they alone can send him back to the White House, as they represent AT MOST 30-35% of the people who will be going to the polls in November. There's a huge number of people who just won't be bothered with voting no matter what, probably another 10-15% that will vote for him just because he's this year's nominee for Team Red, and about 50% who simply aren't having him and would never consider voting for him under any circumstances.

He has to do something to persuade the small slice of voters who are still on the fence (I still don’t understand how such a person exists now that he’s such a known quantity after 9 years), and being convicted of 34 felony counts isn’t likely to move their needle in the right direction. I know you said a lot of this week's donors were first timers, but that's still probably just people from his hardcore base who hadn't yet gotten sucked into the grift.

However, his base foaming at the mouth more than ever does give me concern about the prospects of serious political violence between now and Inauguration Day early next year.

In theory, no one outside of his supporter base would vote due to the conviction.

Also, his supporter base would and should disintegrate in normal circumstances.

But I and clearly many others think this will go the opposite direction.

Were not all insane so there may just be some truth to it.

I cannot believe you are still peddling the idea your original comment was serious instead of recognizing how ignorant it was or just quietly slinking away.

I mean, you are in Asia and non-Asian, right? How in the world could you possibly receive a fair trial if prosecuted? Like that Colombian fellow sitting in judgment of Trump...

It appears as though all of your posts tend to veer massively off topic.

I can tell you've never been in a position in Asia yourself and also have limited if any knowledge of the legal systems in different countries here.

Do you realise that Turkey and UAE are both in Asia? Add those to the likes of China to begin with and you may not be as confident about 'fair trials' in certain parts of the world.

A little research on other countries will also find cases of bias against non-locals.

 

[BlueTX]

It appears as though all of your posts tend to veer massively off topic.

I can tell you've never been in a position in Asia yourself and also have limited if any knowledge of the legal systems in different countries here.

Do you realise that Turkey and UAE are both in Asia? Add those to the likes of China to begin with and you may not be as confident about 'fair trials' in certain parts of the world.

A little research on other countries will also find cases of bias against non-locals.

Appearances are clearly quite deceiving to you.

Let's recap: Zatara claims a judge cannot preside over a fair trial if the defendant is of a different political party, which is patently absurd. BlueTX makes light of such nonsense by replying with a clearly offensive parallel. Instead of recognizing the reply is to point out the original absurdity and recognize it as such, Zatara feigns surprise one would not agree while being ever-so haughty and condescending in an attempt to belittle.

It's so very adorable and predictable.

Can Trump be given fair treatment by a Mexican born in Indiana or a Colombian who was raised in Queens (the Trump family borough) from the age of six? In addition to his claims of political bias, which are, like everything with Trump, purely conditional, do you agree with the racial component of his complaints?

 

[Zatara]

Appearances are clearly quite deceiving to you.

Let's recap: Zatara claims a judge cannot preside over a fair trial if the defendant is of a different political party, which is patently absurd. BlueTX makes light of such nonsense by replying with a clearly offensive parallel. Instead of recognizing the reply is to point out the original absurdity and recognize it as such, Zatara feigns surprise one would not agree while being ever-so haughty and condescending in an attempt to belittle.

It's so very adorable and predictable.

Can Trump be given fair treatment by a Mexican born in Indiana or a Colombian who was raised in Queens (the Trump family borough) from the age of six? In addition to his claims of political bias, which are, like everything with Trump, purely conditional, do you agree with the racial component of his complaints?

You go off topic using Asia as an example.

I answer with a few countries as examples and you realise I'm correct.

Now this bizarre post.

Well done.

 

[Xizor]

I've taken legal action before and the judges clearly werent impartial. I wont go into that but, when you go down these roads...reality can be different.

You know this is starting to make sense. Because a judge has slapped you down in court before, your takeaway is that you were right and the judge must have been corrupt, rather than your lawsuit being wrong or frivolous.

And because you start with the conclusion that Trump shouldn't be found guilty, you're applying the same flawed rationale to the case:

• The judge must have been biased, and you're naïve if you think otherwise
• The jury can't have been truly impartial, and you're naïve if you think otherwise
• The prosecution must have been politically motivated, and you're naïve if you think otherwise

All of that in your head it not just more likely but assumed true, rather than the alternative:

• Trump committed a crime and was prosecuted for it, the case was presided over a by a judge who was able to adjudicate according to the law instead of their political leanings and he was found guilty by a group of 12 random Americans from New York

It's interesting that you find it near-impossible that people you don't even know can behave in a professional manner, and would immediately resort to what amounts to 'cheating' to get their way.

 

[Xizor]

You go off topic using Asia as an example.

Tell us again about the Green and Orange men who hate each other. What planet was that on again?

 

[Zatara]

You know this is starting to make sense. Because a judge has slapped you down in court before, your takeaway is that you were right and the judge must have been corrupt, rather than your lawsuit being wrong or frivolous.

And because you start with the conclusion that Trump shouldn't be found guilty, you're applying the same flawed rationale to the case:

• The judge must have been biased, and you're naïve if you think otherwise
• The jury can't have been truly impartial, and you're naïve if you think otherwise
• The prosecution must have been politically motivated, and you're naïve if you think otherwise

All of that in your head it not just more likely but assumed true, rather than the alternative:

• Trump committed a crime and was prosecuted for it, the case was presided over a by a judge who was able to adjudicate according to the law instead of their political leanings and he was found guilty by a group of 12 random Americans from New York

It's interesting that you find it near-impossible that people you don't even know can behave in a professional manner, and would immediately resort to what amounts to 'cheating' to get their way.

No i did in fact win the case.

Tell us again about the Green and Orange men who hate each other. What planet was that on again?

I think it was somewhere in Texas with a texan who believes racism doesnt exist and that there are always fair trials in the world.

Clearly has plenty of experience and expertise of court proceedings in China, UAE, Turkey and the likes.

 

[Xizor]

No i did in fact win the case.

So you took advantage of a judge you knew to be biased towards you? Doesn't sound like ethical behavour, could you have moved for some sort of mistrial?