Jump to content

Chomper Higgot

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    37,535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Chomper Higgot

  1. Yep, silly you. The evidence has been found, much of it directly from Republicans and Trump associates. That evidence was put before a Grand Jury. It’s the Grand Jury that handed down the indictments.
  2. DA’s and AG’s get criminals. That’s what DA’s and AG’s do. Judges are required not only to be impartial but to have no appearance of bias.
  3. Simple. Recuse the judge and replace her with someone who was not appointed by the defendant.
  4. He might not be. There is no guarantee that the Republicans who are at each other’s throats could agree between them on a replacement. The party that can’t govern itself.
  5. Frog learns it wasn’t a good idea to give a scorpion a free ride.
  6. You’ll find the topic of discussion at the top of the thread, it’s not me. You’ll also find a link to private messaging at the top of the page, you may use that to send messages to individual members and thereby avoid cluttering the thread with your ‘bro chats’.
  7. All the best people: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/investor-company-that-took-trump-media-public-pleads-guilty-insider-trading-2024-04-03/
  8. Yes he did, but that tells us nothing about what securities Knight Speciality Insurance have received or from whom they received them.
  9. Not at all. Perhaps not as Christian as they claim, and often curiously angry about other people’s gender and sexuality. Look at Graham Linemen as an example, pretending to be a woman. There’s lots of strange stuff going on once the auto-grievance stroking gets underway.
  10. Stating that I have absolutely no doubt you have not wasted any police time is not the same thing as stating, or even indicating, that the police would not waste time on your [claimed] report of [your asserted] Yousef’s race rant’. They might, for example never have received any such report. Or it might go straight in the trash folder as being a report of an alleged hate incident that predates the law.
  11. I have no idea, but I do know they are often not what they profess to be.
  12. A great deal of auto-grievance stroking and lots of references to race from people usually keen to scream ‘race card’ whenever the matter of race comes up. And of course a total ignorance of the fact the law is not ‘retrospective’ and has no applicability to any alleged hate crimes that took place before the law came into place.
  13. I did not ‘indicate the police would not waste time on your [claimed] report of [your asserted] Yousef’s race rant’. Get back to us when the police advise you if reports of alleged hate incidents that predate the legislation are admissible under the new law. I absolutely agree, your post was an allegation of a conspiracy.
  14. A bigger question is, has Trump himself provided the collateral for this bond or did that come from someone else and if from some else who?
  15. You auto-stroking your self nurtured conspiracy grievances wasn’t what I had in mind. But thanks for the insights.
  16. I have absolutely no doubt you haven’t wasted any police time.
  17. Donny hiding the truth about his financial standing, where have we seen that before. Hey Donny, are the auditors done yet?
  18. A language does need to be phonetic for any spelling of pronunciations to make sense. You can misspell any word you like, but how that miss spelled word ‘reads’ is dependent upon the accent of the reader.
  19. A curious back drop to this vile specimen’s photo. And well done the BBC! Two British women arrested too.
  20. That’s an odd string of things to stitch into a post. I wonder what brought it on?!
  21. Trump’s obviously keen to get more time in the courthouse. I’m all in favor of him getting great deal more of it.
  22. Which is precisely what Jack Smith is laying the groundwork’s for. Judge Cannon’s ruling is without any legal basis, it doesn’t rely on a single bit of case law, makes zero reference to any law, ruling or precedent. What her ruling does do is demonstrate bias in favor of the defendant. And there only needs to be ‘an appearance of bias’ to warrant recusal.
×
×
  • Create New...