Chomper Higgot

Laden with baseless assertions. Hardly a surprise given the source. But let’s put a pin in this idea of jurors being threatened.

Pinkvilla!

Indictments are handed down by Grand Juries, not the Democrat Party. As to your “approximately half of the USA voters” are these people getting their news and views from FOX and Sinclair I wonder? Are they even ‘approximately half of the USA voters’?

There’s a few that have well and truly blown their cover in this thread. Don’t expect any introspection.

What’s wrong with hating the idea of prosecuting people who have not been indicted?

I don’t have, nor never have had, any asylum seekers.

Perhaps the fact that the houses built in Rwanda with UK tax payer’s money are now being sold to locals in Rwanda is an indication of how this farce is progressing. It ought to at least raise a few concerns, not least because of the failure of the Tory Government to build affordable homes in the UK. Isn’t the rightwing cry usually ‘charity begins at home’?

You are aware Trump could not be put in trial while President and that since being kicked out of office Trump has been trying every trick in the book to delay the start of this trial?! Oh and the felony charges Trump is facing are ‘election interference’.

Thanks for your link, I particularly liked this bit: “Such a [Trump’s] trial is unprecedented in American history, but it is exactly what’s supposed to happen in a democracy when a political leader (allegedly) commits crimes against democracy. (Trump denies he committed any crimes.) Democracy is, at the very highest level, a system for turning the idea of human equality into practical political reality. When leaders can get away with whatever they want, there is no real political equality: We are electing kings, not fellow citizens. If powerful actors try to act above the law, independent institutions need to check their misbehavior. “ I’m guessing you didn’t read the article before you posted the link.

You have consistently whinged. Equal application of the law is what is going on here. Cohen faced justice for his part in these crimes, and now it’s Trump's turn to face justice. Cohen and Trump were both indicted by Grand Juries. Pelosi was not, Clinton was not….

It was a Tory majority parliament. It was the Tory MP’s who submitted letters to the 1922 committee to toss her out. Had she passed her fiscally insane plan by the OBR they would have had the chance to advise against unfounded tax cuts, she obviously thought it a good idea to leave the teaching of the lesson to the markets. People in the UK who are paying mortgages are still faced with the bill.

Steady on. Nobody is arguing there shouldn’t be a trial. There are those arguing Trump should be above the law. Pick a side on that.

Truss has a grudge against the Office of Budget Responsibility (there’s a clue in the name). She neglected to inform them of her fiscally insane plan and then went on to push the economy to the brink of collapse. She’s a raving lunatic. Even so, she does have her admirers.

She was removed by the Tories because of her fiscal insanity. What truths did she tell?

Trump’s criminal trial starts Monday, Screaming Hillary is already underway.

Pinned

No. Trump is indicted for his part in the same crimes that Michael Cohen was convicted of and sent to prison for. Michael Cohen, you will recall, was indicted, tried, found guilty and imprisoned while Trump was President. Trump’s administration went after Cohen and secured a conviction. Now it’s Trump’s turn in the barrel. Get the popcorn!

AND ” In addition, the overt act that follows the agreement doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal act. It just has to be some act that demonstrates that the agreement is now being acted upon.”

Don’t be impatient, the trial starts with jury selection commencing Monday. Meanwhile we have the judge’s summary of the case against Defendant Trump: “The allegations are in substance that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. ”

From your the link you posted: ” In addition, the overt act that follows the agreement doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal act. It just has to be some act that demonstrates that the agreement is now being acted upon.”

Don’t ever use that as a defense. The criteria for a conspiracy to become a felony is taking any step in furtherance of the crime. Actus reus. So in your bank robbery example, conspiring to rob a bank becomes a crime the moment any action is taken in preparation for the robbery - eg you conspired to rob the bank then you went to the bank to ‘case the joint’.

I don’t place any trust Iran ‘living up to their part’. Which is precisely why the treaty included inspections. There’s no such thing as ‘Budenbucks’

We also no longer have a nuclear weapons treaty with Iran. Trashing that was really good idea… not.

If Liz Truss’ memoir has more than five pages she’s padding it out.

I wonder were you got that from 😉