Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, wwest5829 said:

Cute

perhaps, but accurate nonetheless.

Think about it. (now that was cute:tongue:

In the US , and I think any civilized country, when someone is indicted, and meets certain baseline criteria, a person is released on bail until trial. The release is conditional, and such conditions are set at a bail hearing,  if such person fails to adhere to such bail conditions, there is a hearing and based on the bail infraction either a warning is issued (one was already issued.), or punishment is issued.

 Punishments can range from incarceration at a state facility , to house arrest, with a few other  options in-between. 

It is in a "Banana republic"  that the above procedure is not enforced. and not the other way around as you argued. 

I mean think about it. If a crime against you was committed, and the perpetrator was arrested and released on bail, wouldn't you want some protections from such person?  Wouldn't you want that such person was prevented from threatening your witnesses and yourself with violence if you testified against him? And if you do, which I think you would, how would you propose the system protects you from such person? 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Most likely, house arrest wouldn't mean access to cons any more than if he were incarcerated.. Access would be denied as part of the court order.

Of course you know he'll violate, right?

 

Posted
36 minutes ago, sirineou said:

perhaps, but accurate nonetheless.

Think about it. (now that was cute:tongue:

In the US , and I think any civilized country, when someone is indicted, and meets certain baseline criteria, a person is released on bail until trial. The release is conditional, and such conditions are set at a bail hearing,  if such person fails to adhere to such bail conditions, there is a hearing and based on the bail infraction either a warning is issued (one was already issued.), or punishment is issued.

 Punishments can range from incarceration at a state facility , to house arrest, with a few other  options in-between. 

It is in a "Banana republic"  that the above procedure is not enforced. and not the other way around as you argued. 

I mean think about it. If a crime against you was committed, and the perpetrator was arrested and released on bail, wouldn't you want some protections from such person?  Wouldn't you want that such person was prevented from threatening your witnesses and yourself with violence if you testified against him? And if you do, which I think you would, how would you propose the system protects you from such person? 

If conditions are broached, it is up to the Judge to call the perp to task. Hmmm, I do need to further read if, indeed, “house arrest” has been used in the USA. I am aware of ankle bracelets constricting movement but am not sure that this is “house arrest” as used in some other countries. You either mis understand or misconstrue my meaning if you come to the conclusion that I do not want legal proceedings, normally used in the USA to be applied. Did further reading … I was not aware that we use “house arrest” the same as other third world countries. I stand corrected in my ignorance of this.

Posted
4 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

If conditions are broached, it is up to the Judge to call the perp to task. Hmmm, I do need to further read if, indeed, “house arrest” has been used in the USA. I am aware of ankle bracelets constricting movement but am not sure that this is “house arrest” as used in some other countries. You either mis understand or misconstrue my meaning if you come to the conclusion that I do not want legal proceedings, normally used in the USA to be applied. Did further reading … I was not aware that we use “house arrest” the same as other third world countries. I stand corrected in my ignorance of this.

Yes perhaps do some further reading, ankle bracelets are often used to detect house arrest violations

Posted
58 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Of course you know he'll violate, right?

 

I guess it depends on how strictly his confinement is enforced. If he's confined to a small area, with limited visitation right and no access to communications, he could be stymied. Of course, there would have to be someone there to enforce the restrictions at all times. I doubt that  Secret Service  agent would play the role of prison guard. Not in their remit. 

Posted
31 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes perhaps do some further reading, ankle bracelets are often used to detect house arrest violations

Done and further educated. My knowledge with our criminal Justice system on this level is limited by not having had experience.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

I stand corrected in my ignorance of this.

IMO, it takes a big man to say that.

It's not like we have never been wrong, why can't we be now? Is there anyone among as who has never been wrong?

I know I have , more times than I am willing to admit LOL

Then why can't we say "Fair enough I stand corrected" as you did? :clap2:

Many just double down and engage in cognitive gymnastics trying to defend the indefensible. 

Even when we disagree, I appreciate people such as you.

Chears !!

 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

Spot on my Oz cobber!

how old are you? 90? ????

 

26 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

 

It was a 12 person jury of citizens (not the BS conspiracy nutjob palava being spouted) that recommended the governments indictments be ratified and taken forward to trial. 

But as you and I, and all sane critical thinking adults know, cultist, white-supremacist bigots aren't at all interested in the truth or the inconvenience of facts.  

And lets be crystal clear if anyone thinks and believes Trump is a good and decent man, a patriot, and not a monumental crook and traitor then you are at the very least one or both of the descriptors I posted in the previous sentence.

They think he's a patriot because he's a racist, nationalist. The two usually go hand in hand. White supremacists are not good people despite what Trump says. They love him because he said they were.

  • Love It 1
Posted

Biased. Corrupt. Deranged. Sounds about right, and it all applies to Trump himself. To those he accuses of being corrupt, biased, and deranged: not so much.

  • Like 1
Posted

Biased, corrupt and deranged all give us a good look into the true person of Donald Trump. The man will be used for decades to come in psychology seminars on projection.

 

I think it is fantastic that this disgraceful mysoginist, sexually abusive and racist bully is being brought to book by a black woman. Imagine what that does to his brain cells. Or better not unless you have a strong stomach.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You're getting your cases mixed up. The case being pursued by the "woman in Georgia" does not involve 11.5 million discovery documents. It hasn't even reached the discovery stage yet.

 

The one with the 11.5 million documents is the Jan 6 case being pursued by the "man in Washington," Jack Smith.

The one is Washington DC is also done by judge Chutkan. Who has been threatened by MAGA Trump supporters so much that she now needs to be protected by a detail of US Marshals. 
A Texas woman (no doubt a huge Trump fan) was recently arrested for threatening to kill judge Chutkan. She left a voice message on Chutkan’s phone, in which she called Chutkan a ‘slave n-word’ and threatened to kill her. This is what she also said:

“You are in our sights, we want to kill you…If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, bitch. You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”

If you want to talk deranged, this is a prime example.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
11 hours ago, placeholder said:

I guess it depends on how strictly his confinement is enforced. If he's confined to a small area, with limited visitation right and no access to communications, he could be stymied. Of course, there would have to be someone there to enforce the restrictions at all times. I doubt that  Secret Service  agent would play the role of prison guard. Not in their remit. 

Yeah, same thing they gave Manafort.  He spent most of his days on the phone, but it was the usual "ooo, he's not supposed to do that!" and didn't get much further.  Maybe now that there is an adult on the case it will make a difference.  Anything regarding "honor system," respect for law, decency etc has been flushed down the golden toilet, how can you not see that?

But you bring up a question I've been asking for years now: will his security detail become his captors?

 

 

Posted
4 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

She left a voice message on Chutkan’s phone, in which she called Chutkan a [ . . . ]

Talk about stupid!

Prepare for what the guy who organized the Charlottesville tiki-torch rally said when they caught up with him: hey, i didn't mean any of that!

 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Wow, a CNN TV host admits that he was wrong, you should formatted the text far larger because its such a scoop. I've book marked it for reference.

Shocking!  You'd never catch a far right news source admitting to error.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/17/2023 at 12:53 PM, JonnyF said:

Yeah who needs a trial? It's not like due process is really important anyway. 

 

I mean, he's clearly guilty of wrongthink and wrongspeak so why waste the money on a fair trial? Just lock him up already. Burma style ????.

Do you think Trump is guilty of any of the charges against him?

 

Or do you think it's irrelevant, Trump should not be put on trial?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...