Chomper Higgot

Any excuse to prolong your willful avoidance of facts. No States ‘promote abortions’. Not that such a fact will get through.

If you don’t like Grand Juries, change the Constitution. Oh and while you’re at it……

Don’t misunderstand me, I think far more have them should have been gun-downed as they crossed the threshold.

Like, who was refusing to call out the national guard?

As a bonus the BBC have handed the general public an object lesson on worker solidarity and collective action. Goooooaaaaaal !

Watch and learn.

Not quite that simple. If the GJ passes down a decision to indict the prosecution then need to formally indict. It would however be extremely unusual for them not to do so. Thereafter a judge summons Trump before the court (This is an arrest regardless of how Trump turns up at court and regardless of whether he is cuffed). The judge will set a trial date and bail conditions. The judge will also order the prosecution to present all the evidence they have for and against Trump to his legal team. Trump is not accused of a violent crime and hence will certainly be given bail, with conditions attached. House arrest and surrender of passports is the most likely outcome. The attached conditions will include standard terms regarding intimidation of witnesses and what Trump may or may not disclose in the evidence the Court will ordered transferred to his legal team. Examples might be naming and doxing witnesses against him, threats overt or implied, against witnesses, prosecutors, the court, judge or anyone involved with the case. If Trump breaks those Bail terms then he may be rearrested and jailed. The question is of course, can Trump stop running his mouth?

Trump is the target of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is a constitutionally mandated procedure to review evidence before indictments for ‘capital or infamous crimes’, in this case crimes that, if conviction is achieved will result in imprisonment. The Grand Jury is not a trial, but better described as an ‘inquest’ to examine if indictment is warranted. For this reason it is the evidence and testimony of witnesses in favor of prosecution that are presented to the Grand Jury. The ‘target’, in this case Trump gets to defend themselves at trial if the Grand Jury recommends indictment. However, under New York statutes, targets of Grand Juries are permitted themselves to address the Grand Jury, they are not compelled to do so but must be offered the opportunity to do so. Hence the invite with the ‘Mae West letter’. Trump will almost certainly decline the invite as anything he says before the Grand Jury is evidence admissible at trial. Trump is now in real peril of indictment, if he’s managed to find a lawyer who’s willing to give him the advice he needs, as opposed to the advice he wants to hear, then Trump will be zipping his mouth. Place your bets.

Do stop with this deflection of assumptions on who the migrants are or why they are coming. The subject under discussion is the censoring of Gary Lineker for speaking up against the language used by Government in reference to migrants.

We know you can’t see the similarities, we got that.

You need to brush up on the facts of primate behaviour.

A gross misrepresentation of the leftwing views on inner city schooling. Have another go and think about funding (for schools, not tax cuts for the hyper wealthy).

You might want to research how it was that singling out a minority group escalated into crimes against humanity and how the question came to be asked ‘Why didn’t anyone speak up against this before it was too late?’.

BBC Scores a home goal: https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2023/mar/11/bbc-gary-lineker-match-of-the-day-alex-scott-latest-reaction-news

And so?

Wonderful stuff, sell the rights.

You haven’t provided evidence that the increase in channel crossings has anything to do with Merkel’s refugee policies. Please have a go, I could do with the amusement.

That’s not a rabbit hole you’ve gone down, it’s a warren

Well there was a time, like for most of recorded history, when the UK was not the UK.

If you can’t back up an assertion of Gary Lineker being a socialist you should not make the assertion. That’s how honest, good faith debate works.

I’m waiting for you to back up your assertion that Lineker is a socialist. You made the claim, you back it up.

If!

No body has proven he evaded taxes. Perhaps we should have a thread on that.

“ So what he has done appears to be clear tax evasion” I think you mean ‘allegedly. Snd what does this allegation have to do with the topic under discussion?

We’re is your evidence that Gary Lineker is a socialist?