Danderman123

What are the possibilities that Trump appeals a conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court, which then overturns the verdict because reasons?

Refute one of the listed facts, otherwise you are trolling. Just saying nonsense in response to facts makes you appear unbalanced.

You just proved yourself wrong. The CNN producer said no one was lying, CNN was focused on the Trump story because people were interested in it. But FOX lies: remember their claiming that Dominion was stealing votes from Trump with their machines? They lied about that repeatedly, on air, while privately expressing doubts about the story. When you don't believe your own lies, that's pretty bad.

You are responding to known facts with a lie. This is a tired old trolling technique. Refute the facts listed in the prior post, or stop trolling. We'll wait.

Got some examples that were not mistakes that were later cleared up? A reputable news organization rectifies its mistakes, FOX News rarely, if ever, does.

Concerning bar pricing, part of the price considerations is overhead, but there is also the owner's consideration of what the market will bear. Some bars are historically more popular than others, but their prices are higher. Location is a factor, although a better location may not cost more than a facility in a pooror location.

I don't see so much lying on CNN or MSNBC as omission of facts, or just plain stupidity. FOX, however, is mostly a barrage of lies.

Either that, or Trump committed a lot of crimes. Occam's Razor will help you with resolving this question.

The New York Times produced a video showing the January 6 events in a minute by minute timeline. Also the Justice Department has offered detailed timelines into evidence. No defendent has successfully contested these facts over 100s of trials. "we don't really know" = "you aren't paying attention to known facts".

I would like to see Trump convicted in one of his cases, but not jailed until after the GOP convention. Conviction will cost Trump some independent votes, but I don't want him to be jailed while the GOP could remove him as Nominee. My preference would be a convicted candidate in the General Election.

The big question for this case is the trial date. I suspect its going to be January 2024.

Your inability to back up your assertions, and constantly changing your positions make MAGA and Trump look bad. You can't answer direct questions, and you have multiple positiin on the crime of conspiracy, all of which conflict with the legal description.

When you are unable to answer questions to back up your position, you are losing, and make Trump look undefensible.

His thoughts are so confused and fact-free that he is making MAGA and Trump look bad.

he planned for months. He threatened election officials. You clearly didn't understand the indictment.

You forgot about the fake electors and January 6.

You are suggesting that conspiracies that fail are legally protected free speech? Conversely, are you now asserting that conspiracies that don't fail are not protected free speech?

If Hunter Biden conspired with Joe to take a bribe from Burisma, that's protected speech?

Bargirls often post photos of themselves on social media - if they are in an elevator OR from a hotel balcony, its a statement to other bargirls that they have a customer.

"The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." Clearly, the first year law student was sleeping in class.

Conspiracy as a crime is not limited to murder. But, you claimed that all conspiracies are legal. Are you changing your opinion that conspiracies involving murder are illegal? Or are you just trolling?

So Conspiracy as a crime is invalid? Planning a second Holocaust would be protected speech? How about people discussing a plan to murder you? If you had a recording, you wouldn't report it to the police?

Do you believe that all conspiracies are inherently legal because of the First Amendment?

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, attack the prosecutor.

Yeah, there is a section on civil rights violations having to do with fake electors. Maybe you read it, but didn't understand it. Are there any alleged facts in the indictment that you think are untrue?