2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I agree. I doubt very much that Biden has the mental capacity to be "...directing the investigations and prosecutions...", but I don't doubt the left knows what's to be done.

Are you also QAnon? There is more proof that QAnon is real (none, actually) than that trump did not try to overthrow American democracy.

 

When trump is found guilty and jailed for the rest of his miserable existence, no doubt you'll spout that other absurdist drivel of "Deep State"

22 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

You mean the regular traveler on Jeffrey Epstein's "Lolita Express"?

 

That alan dershowitz?

On that score, Dershowitz has been in Trump's corner for a long time, defending him against impeachment by the Senate, regularly appearing on Fox News in defense of Trump, etc etc.

 

Per the LA Times from 2020:

 

"It might seem unlikely introspection for an outspoken lawyer whose high-profile career has been marred by his association with a now-dead pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, and who has now become a member of President Trump’s impeachment legal defense team.

 

After months of fiercely defending the president on Fox News, Dershowitz said he will argue constitutional issues on the Senate floor."

...

"In 2008, Dershowitz helped the wealthy financier secure a cushy plea deal with federal prosecutors in Florida while Epstein was under investigation on suspicion of sexually abusing underage girls."

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-17/alan-dershowitz-named-to-trumps-impeachment-legal-team

 

It would have been better if Dershowitz had just stuck with the OTHER criminal, Epstein.

 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Not many people have the mental capacity to direct complex criminal investigations.

 

However, if you believe that there is some secret left wing group directing these indictments, you are deluded.

I don't think it takes a "secret left wing group" to organize a bunch of Trump-hating zealots. 

 

 

Live by the Dershowitz, die by the Dershowitz:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianebrady/2023/06/09/dershowitz-sees-a-possible-smoking-gun-in-trump-indictment/?sh=180c42767af7

 

Dershowitz Sees A Possible Smoking Gun In (Mar-a-Lago) Trump Indictment

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Don't get carried away snookums.

Dershowitz didn't say Trump is innocent. 

A literal smoking gun isn't needed to convict people. 

It happens everyday. 

I'm not getting carried away sugar-plum, so try not to get your panties in a ruffle. 

 

Dershowitz effectively said the charges are political and that while he may be convicted by a DC jury, he said it would be overturned at the appellate level. 

 

The Dershow (google.com)

 

 

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Live by the Dershowitz, die by the Dershowitz:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianebrady/2023/06/09/dershowitz-sees-a-possible-smoking-gun-in-trump-indictment/?sh=180c42767af7

 

Dershowitz Sees A Possible Smoking Gun In (Mar-a-Lago) Trump Indictment

Yes, unlike the other indictments, he sees the documents case as having merit, but because no one else has been prosecuted for the same crimes, if convicted, it would likely be reversed on appeal. 

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"Do you really think that jack smith would just make up..."

Yes, absolutely right I do, to all of that. 

John Luman Smith (born June 5, 1969) is an American attorney who has served in the United States Department of Justiceas an assistant U.S. attorney, acting U.S. attorney, and head of the department's Public Integrity Section. He was also the chief prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, an international tribunal at The Hague tasked with investigating and prosecuting war crimes in the Kosovo War.

 

So in your opinion, yet another professional with impeccable credentials has all of a sudden decided to risk his reputation, his career and his future on a pack of lies that can be easily found out in a court of law?

If he was just making it all up do you really think that a court case with this amount of coverage would be the time to gamble it all? That now is the time to throw the dice on his career and yo say “hey, what the hell!”?

So many true patriots have sacrificed their careers to tell you just how bad Trump is but none of them have any credibility as far as Trumpers are concerned because the word of Trump is all that matters. 
Where is your objectivity? Where is your logical thinking? Where is YOUR integrity?

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

John Luman Smith (born June 5, 1969) is an American attorney who has served in the United States Department of Justiceas an assistant U.S. attorney, acting U.S. attorney, and head of the department's Public Integrity Section. He was also the chief prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, an international tribunal at The Hague tasked with investigating and prosecuting war crimes in the Kosovo War.

 

So in your opinion, yet another professional with impeccable credentials has all of a sudden decided to risk his reputation, his career and his future on a pack of lies that can be easily found out in a court of law?

If he was just making it all up do you really think that a court case with this amount of coverage would be the time to gamble it all? That now is the time to throw the dice on his career and yo say “hey, what the hell!”?

So many true patriots have sacrificed their careers to tell you just how bad Trump is but none of them have any credibility as far as Trumpers are concerned because the word of Trump is all that matters. 
Where is your objectivity? Where is your logical thinking? Where is YOUR integrity?

That poster is sniffing the vapors.

 

SC Smith has videos, emails, messages and (R) witnesses who have already testified under oath.

 

When the trial comes, he will call those same witnesses to the stand, and they will say the same thing, lest they be charged with perjury for their earlier Grand Jury testimony.

 

What they said (as per the indictment) and what they will say on the witness stand is that trump was intimately involved with the illegal attempt to  eradicate American democracy, using everything from manufacturing fake electors to trying to pressure State elections officials to illegally change the vote.

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, unlike the other indictments, he sees the documents case as having merit, but because no one else has been prosecuted for the same crimes, if convicted, it would likely be reversed on appeal. 

Link, please.

A post with unsupported claims has been removed, the replies were also removed.

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

What they said (as per the indictment) and what they will say on the witness stand is that trump was intimately involved with the illegal attempt to  eradicate American democracy

How do you know what they said? 

4 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

How do you know what they said? 

How? I read the indictment.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, unlike the other indictments, he sees the documents case as having merit, but because no one else has been prosecuted for the same crimes, if convicted, it would likely be reversed on appeal. 

My post was removed, so I will be more thorough. I mistakenly assumed people read the news.

 

The Air Force Reserve Officer was was caught stealing documents via his job at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod---Jack Teixeira--- is being held pending trial.  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/us/politics/teixeira-detention-hearing.html

 

Harold Martin III, a contract analyst working at the NSA, took home documents to work at home. He is currently serving 9 years in jail. Martin was charged with illegal possession. He was not accused, nor charged, with passing any information to foreign sources, nor for showing any documents to any unauthorized person.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/743345689/ex-nsa-contractor-who-stole-top-secret-documents-sentenced-to-9-years-in-prison

And then there's Sandy Berger

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, unlike the other indictments, he sees the documents case as having merit, but because no one else has been prosecuted for the same crimes, if convicted, it would likely be reversed on appeal. 

You sure about that?

Fact check: Multiple non-spies have received prison sentences under Espionage Act provision Trump is charged with violating

"Facts First: The Espionage Act does not merely target “traitors and spies.” Even during Trump’s own presidency, obscure citizens who kept classified material at their homes, and were never accused of communicating it to anyone or aiding a foreign country, were convicted and sentenced to years in prison under the very same Espionage Act provision Trump is now charged with breaking."

The Espionage Act provision under which Trump was indicted by a Florida federal grand jury on 31 counts, Section 793(e), makes it a crime when someone without authorization “willfully retains” national defense information “and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.” 

The article goes on to list 4 people who received prison sentences under the law during the Trump administration, not, for spying, but simply for willfully retaining those documents.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/15/politics/fact-check-espionage-act-trump-willful-retention-prison/index.html

 

I think any lawyer for Trump who tried to make the claim that he was uniquely being prosecuted would be laughed out of court. Granted, that's not such an unusual occurrence for Trump's lawyers.

Ironically, under the Trump administration, penalties for mishandling of classified documents were increased.

Here's a question for the Trump fans:

 

Remember "Lock her up"?

 

What was Hillary Clinton's alleged crime?

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think it takes a "secret left wing group" to organize a bunch of Trump-hating zealots. 

 

 

What’s not to hate?

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Dershowitz effectively said the charges are political and that while he may be convicted by a DC jury, he said it would be overturned at the appellate level. 

But who cares? stop bandying about the name of a, to use Trump language, "washed-up has-been wannabe." This old man "effectively" got off Virginia Giuffre's case by keeping his panties on during massage, nevertheless his notoriety has gone down hill since. And repeat, no one cares a straw (sorry for bringing up the image) about his "smoking gun."

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think it takes a "secret left wing group" to organize a bunch of Trump-hating zealots. 

 

 

You're right. It just take some of us who believe in democracy and rule of law, and maybe some of us who served, or some of us who can judge character and know trump is a mendacious, serial philandering, self-serving, willfully ignorant treasonous POS.

 

It takes people who have been successful in life, not losers who need a messiah through which they can try to live vicariously. Losers, however, gonna lose. trump isn't going to salvage your life from abject mediocrity and meaninglessness.

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

It takes people who have been successful in life, not losers who need a messiah through which they can try to live vicariously

Sure but as populists going back to Louisiana's Huey Long in the 1930's realized: Successful people have one vote and "losers" have one vote and there may be more of the latter than the former.

11 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Not many people have the mental capacity to direct complex criminal investigations.

 

However, if you believe that there is some secret left wing group directing these indictments, you are deluded.

He believes in the infamous Kabal

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

He believes in the infamous Kabal

AND --

 

August 7, 2023 at 11:46 a.m. EDT
 

A majority of Americans think the Trump probes are about 2024

New polling from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, shows that arguments like the one made by Lauro have real traction. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans think that the investigations into Trump are an effort to keep him from winning the White House next year. Trump argues that he’s being indicted because his opponents want to punish his supporters; half of Republicans think that the probes are “an attack on people like me.”

 

In other words, most Republicans — and perhaps most Americans — think that Biden is engaged in what Trump is accused of doing: manipulating the system to retain power. Subtle arguments about the role of a special counsel probably won’t do much to reverse that idea.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/07/trump-federal-election-charges/

 

https://archive.is/wrhPK

21 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AND --

 

August 7, 2023 at 11:46 a.m. EDT
 

A majority of Americans think the Trump probes are about 2024

New polling from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, shows that arguments like the one made by Lauro have real traction. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans think that the investigations into Trump are an effort to keep him from winning the White House next year. Trump argues that he’s being indicted because his opponents want to punish his supporters; half of Republicans think that the probes are “an attack on people like me.”

 

In other words, most Republicans — and perhaps most Americans — think that Biden is engaged in what Trump is accused of doing: manipulating the system to retain power. Subtle arguments about the role of a special counsel probably won’t do much to reverse that idea.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/07/trump-federal-election-charges/

 

https://archive.is/wrhPK

It’s not a matter of what most Americans think, it’s a matter of what a jury of 12 think.

 

They, unlike ‘most Americans’ will get to see and hear the evidence firsthand with no intermediaries telling them what to think.

 

[edit] Multiple juries of 12 Americans.

 

Multiple juries of other Americans have already decided there is good cause to send the accusations against Trump to trial.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not a matter of what most Americans think, it’s a matter of what a jury of 12 think.

Oh. Thanks for that.

 

But most Americans is who will elect the next President in 2024 and -- at least to me -- that is more importrant than the outcome of any of these Trump criminal trials extent or  possible.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

Oh. Thanks for that.

 

But most Americans is who will elect the next President in 2024 and -- at least to me -- that is more importrant than the outcome of any of these criminal trials extent or  possible.

Well maybe, but don’t get your hopes up:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4137314-roughly-half-of-republicans-in-new-poll-would-not-vote-for-trump-if-hes-convicted-of-felony/amp/

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well maybe, but don’t get your hopes up:

My hopes are that he isn't the Republican nominee and, if he is, he loses.

 

And just because I am not part of the tar-and-feather squad on here, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

My hopes are that he isn't the Republican nominee and, if he is, he loses.

I don’t see the Republicans have a way out of selecting Trump as their candidate, a mess of their own making.

 

The ‘Republican Party’ doesn’t really exist anymore, it’s been replaced by an extremist cult.

 

The party of ‘small government’ now focussed on controlling the minutiae of citizens lives.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t see the Republicans have a way out of selecting Trump as their candidate, a mess of their own making.

 

The ‘Republican Party’ doesn’t really exist anymore, it’s been replaced by an extremist cult.

 

The party of ‘small government’ now focussed on controlling the minutiae of citizens lives.

 

 

You were the one who alluded to my 'hopes'.

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

You were the one who alluded to my 'hopes'.

I didn’t allude, I made a direct statement.

 

I’ve read a lot of your posts, I naturally draw my own conclusions.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t allude, I made a direct statement.

 

I’ve read a lot of your posts, I naturally draw my own conclusions.

 

 

Your conclusions are dead wrong. I voted against Trump twice. I would vote against him agian but my ability to register again for 2024 is in doubt.

 

I lived in New York City in the mid-1970's when Trump first started to become famous for being famous.

 

I will quote the very liberal Columnist for the NY Times:

June 12, 2023

How seriously should we take Donald Trump’s candidacy?
 

Frank Bruni: We should take it with maximal, bone-chilling, psyche-ravaging, hope-slaying seriousness. Even under federal indictment, he’s the likeliest Republican nominee. And the Republican nominee ipso facto has a decent shot at the presidency. Which means a second term of Trump, heaven help us, is entirely possible.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/opinion/donald-trump-2024.html

 

To me, all these criminal trials are a side show in magnitude compared to the prospect, of whatever possibility, that Trump is again elected President.