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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

Hahaha biased against foreigners more like. If you noticed I wrote 'judges' and not 'judge'. If you have an understanding of various legal processes and proceedings in various Asian countries then the answer is clear.

The democrat party did all in their power to put this case forward and into trial.

Was there really any doubt at all what would happen in both cases?

How many major New York based democratic party donors from the real estate industry and how many of the same have been found guilty at this level in other cases?

Or are democrats not doing anything similar lol
 
Hang on, so the judges were biased against you, and yet you still won the case?

So it is possible for that to happen, one party in a legal case to overcome apparent judicial bias and win, say... if the facts are with them?

Not if the case is taken up a level due to clear bias against either party nor if there are different judges appointed at different stages during the process.
 
Not if the case is taken up a level due to clear bias against either party nor if there are different judges appointed at different stages during the process.

Ah, right. So we're now at the point where one of these two statements is true:

a) Your previous legal experience isn't actually analagous to this case as you're now claiming significant differences between them, which undermines your argument a bit,

Or

b) Judges can have bias (and even act on it) against one party in a trial but that party can still win the case, which undermines your argument entirely.

Which statement is true? Were you talking a small amount of nonsense, or large?

Or would you like to take the mystery box wildcard option, which is to admit you're making all this up as you go along?
 
Ah, right. So we're now at the point where one of these two statements is true:

a) Your previous legal experience isn't actually analagous to this case as you're now claiming significant differences between them, which undermines your argument a bit,

Or

b) Judges can have bias (and even act on it) against one party in a trial but that party can still win the case, which undermines your argument entirely.

Which statement is true? Were you talking a small amount of nonsense, or large?

Or would you like to take the mystery box wildcard option, which is to admit you're making all this up as you go along?

At this point, theres really no reason for me to engage seeing as you and the texan have no experience or knowledge and are extremely biased.

My personal history is and will remain no business of yours.

To believe in impartiality is a massive, massive foolish error.

No one is ever fully impartial. The courts can work in favour and against you...

...especially when there is a puppeteer.
 
If several of Biden's colleagues and the judge and the jury all admitted on their death beds to this being a targeted attack...

...i'm sure several posters in the thread would still deny it lol
 
You know I was just having some morning shower thoughts (apologies for that image) and I think I've distilled the essence of the thread currently into one easily digestible sentence.

Zatara (and anybody else popping in to make the same points) is placing the ethics and behaviour of Donald Trump of all people above those of a state supreme court judge (of 30 year's legal service, inc. 18 as a judge) plus 12 random New York citizens.

Let that sink in a moment.
 
You know I was just having some morning shower thoughts (apologies for that image) and I think I've distilled the essence of the thread currently into one easily digestible sentence.

Zatara (and anybody else popping in to make the same points) is placing the ethics and behaviour of Donald Trump of all people above those of a state supreme court judge (of 30 year's legal service, inc. 18 as a judge) plus 12 random New York citizens.

Let that sink in a moment.

He defended Harvey Weinstein.
 
The poor mugger was barely legal and legged it when Zat asked him to punch him in the heart, screaming “ you are el presidente “

Really?

You know I was just having some morning shower thoughts (apologies for that image) and I think I've distilled the essence of the thread currently into one easily digestible sentence.

Zatara (and anybody else popping in to make the same points) is placing the ethics and behaviour of Donald Trump of all people above those of a state supreme court judge (of 30 year's legal service, inc. 18 as a judge) plus 12 random New York citizens.

Let that sink in a moment.

Not one person has claimed Trump is ethical.

Not a single poster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

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

🛒 Visit Shop

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