Trump surrenders for historic fourth arrest

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Just two in five Americans say these indictments are “witch hunts”. 

 

NEW POLL: Whopping 62% Say Trump ‘Committed a Crime’ In Poll Released Amid Mugshot Furor

More than three in five Americans believe that Donald Trump has committed a crime (net +32; 62 percent committed a crime – 30 percent did not commit a crime), including independents by 49 points (67 percent committed a crime – 18 percent did not), nine in ten Democrats (net +87; 92 percent committed a crime – 5 percent did not), and nearly three in ten Republicans (net -33; 28 percent committed a crime – 18 percent did not).

Roughly seven in ten Americans — including similar shares among independents — believe that the indictments brought so far against Trump are serious, and about 60 percent say the same about whether they are legitimate investigations compared to just two in five who say they are “witch hunts,” with little differentiation based on the charges asked about:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-poll-whopping-62-say-trump-committed-a-crime-in-poll-released-amid-mugshot-furor

Mediaite? Looking at the LATEST NEWS IN POLITICS AND MEDIA it all seems to have a rather similar theme, a bit like the favorites from this Navigator Research lot.

 

Can't you find anything a bit less obviously biased? 

 

Guess not. I'll pass. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Mediaite? Looking at the LATEST NEWS IN POLITICS AND MEDIA it all seems to have a rather similar theme, a bit like the favorites from this Navigator Research lot.

 

Can't you find anything a bit less obviously biased? 

 

Guess not. I'll pass. 

Did you actually think the poll was conducted by Mediate? Oh dear.......................

 

Let hope you never quote a poll from FOX eh, after all Mediate has a higher factual rating.....

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

This is particularly relevant due to the breaking news a few hours ago where Three Black people were killed in a hate-motivated shooting at a Dollar General retailer in Jacksonville, Florida.

 

How Trump’s attacks on prosecutors build on history of using racist language and stereotypes

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s aggressive response to his fourth criminal indictment in five months follows a strategy he has long used against legal and political opponents: relentless attacks, often infused with language that is either overtly racist or is coded in ways that appeal to racists.

The early Republican presidential front-runner has used terms such as “animal” and “rabid” to describe Black district attorneys. He has accused Black prosecutors of being “racist.” He has made unsupported claims about their personal lives. And on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump has deployed terms that rhyme with racial slurs as some of his supporters post racist screeds about the same targets.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-race-georgia-indictment-new-york-prosecutors-04b69a8f3e4873eadb03c132cdee09c8?

You are linking two stories that are not directly linked between themselves. Poor form.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You've gone curiously ignorant on this subject yet you seem to possess so much detailed information about other aspects of the law. Curious, isn't it?

 

CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT
Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. 

https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/c/consciousness-of-guilt/

 

The article goes on to list telling lies as one proof of consciousness of guilt. That you think this needs explaining is odd in itself.

Sounds like a good fallback for prosecutors with no real evidence.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You are linking two stories that are not directly linked between themselves. Poor form.

You don't think Trumps rhetoric can have real world consequences? You don't think his racially motivated speeches are not listened to by his followers. Poor form is not recognizing real world actions that can happen because of his speeches

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you actually think the poll was conducted by Mediate? Oh dear.......................

 

Let hope you never quote a poll from FOX eh, after all Mediate has a higher factual rating.....

No! Read what I said properly.

 

I don't bother with FOX. Pointless here.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Sounds like a good fallback for prosecutors with no real evidence.

You've truly got to be purposely ignorant or living in a cave  not to know of the huge amount of evidence there is against Trump in this case above all. 

But thanks for the Pavlovian response.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No! Read what I said properly.

 

I don't bother with FOX. Pointless here.

 

 

Feel free to pass, those who took the poll hardly care 

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You don't think Trumps rhetoric can have real world consequences? You don't think his racially motivated speeches are not listened to by his followers. Poor form is not recognizing real world actions that can happen because of his speeches

Again, you are trying to directly connect one thing to another. Poor form, because like that you can create more angst than you think there is to start with, just to suit your own narrative.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You've truly got to be purposely ignorant or living in a cave  not to know of the huge amount of evidence there is against Trump in this case above all. 

But thanks for the Pavlovian response.

You're welcome.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Again, you are trying to directly connect one thing to another. Poor form, because like that you can create more angst than you think there is to start with, just to suit your own narrative.

Absolutely, its an example of what can happen, its relevant. Particularly as it happened just after Trump accused Black prosecutors of being “racist.” He has made unsupported claims about their personal lives. And on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump has deployed terms that rhyme with racial slurs as some of his supporters post racist screeds about the same targets.

 

Why do you think judges have warned Trump against any attempt to intimidate witnesses? Because of real world consequences. I know your blind to the relevance but that's not something that surprises me.

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No! Read what I said properly.

 

I don't bother with FOX. Pointless here.

 

 

4 recent polls all said the same thing. Not including the one previously referred to. But since for you, the standard for evidence is whether you care or not, to you that's totally insignificant.

[proton]

Not related to slave owners, as are most recent Presidents, 12 even owned slaves pre 1860. Never started a war, never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton. Never had people killed as did LBJ and Allen Dulles. So as he's been arrested again it looks like he's a threat so somebody, other than the people. At least they don't blow threats brains out in the street like Nov 22 1963!

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, proton said:

Not related to slave owners, as are most recent Presidents, 12 even owned slaves pre 1860. Never started a war, never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton. Never had people killed as did LBJ and Allen Dulles. So as he's been arrested again it looks like he's a threat so somebody, other than the people. At least they don't blow threats brains out in the street like Nov 22 1963!

 

I get it. If some is arrested, that's because they are a threat to somebody. Not because that they actually committed a crime. Or crimes.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, proton said:

Not related to slave owners, as are most recent Presidents, 12 even owned slaves pre 1860. Never started a war, never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton. Never had people killed as did LBJ and Allen Dulles. So as he's been arrested again it looks like he's a threat so somebody, other than the people. At least they don't blow threats brains out in the street like Nov 22 1963!

 

never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton

 

Trump raped E j Carrol!

[proton]

Just now, placeholder said:

I get it. If some is arrested, that's because they are a threat to somebody. Not because that they actually committed a crime. Or crimes.

Threats have to be eliminated or fitted up, happened here, in Russia, China, Myanmar. USA is just the same.

[proton]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton

 

Trump raped E j Carrol!

Nonsense

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, proton said:

Nonsense

Hardly:

 

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.
Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

https://archive.ph/kRu8B

[Walker88]

25 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Sounds like a good fallback for prosecutors with no real evidence.

"Just find me...11,780 votes" on a tape recording, kind of sounds like evidence. As does, "Look, you can do the right thing (sic)". There really is only one way to interpret those statements. Three recounts by GA State officials put to rest any doubt as to who won. That the officials carrying out the recounts and investigation were (R) may not be relevant, but defense would be hard pressed to claim bias. Both Raffensperger and the Governor said they voted for trump, so he was obviously their preferred candidate. Still, they found nothing to change the vote, and thus stood up to trump's pressure.

 

Certainly the grand jury thought enough of the evidence presented to them to recommend indictment.

 

We'll see all of it in court. Should be entertaining. I wonder (NOT) if trump will release the "piles of irrefutable proof" he has showing both fraud and his victory. I suspect his lawyers, knowing they would be disbarred for presenting lies in court, will not be bringing trump's 'piles' into the courtroom. I also doubt sidney powell's lawyer will submit evidence that Hugo Chavez rose from the grave, programmed an Italian satellite, and then changed the votes in Dominion voting machines.

 

The classified documents case against trump is easiest, as willful possession in a non-SCIF by anyone not authorized to see or retain classified docs is a felony. As ex-POTUS, trump has zero security clearance. His 'declassified in my mind' is ludicrous, and had he actually declassified, there would be a paper trail with the signature of WH counsel on every doc. Since non of that exists, and because his lying about having returned everything shows willful retention, plus his former IT chief now says trump told him to erase security camera footage showing boxes of classified material being moved, he's guilty.

 

Personally, I'm glad there will be a trial, as his defense should be good for lots of laughs.

 

Now I also hope that Jack Smith will add "Sedition" to the 6 January indictment, which he could do given that some of trump's former staff who testified to the grand jury claim trump knew he lost and trump was intimately involved in the fake elector scheme. Sedition is a capital offense, which could result in the death penalty.

[Walker88]

6 minutes ago, proton said:

Nonsense

You were there in Bergdorf-Goodman? The civil jury convicted trump of sexual assault, based on the evidence they heard, and awarded Carroll $6 million in damages. Thus, trump is a convicted sex offender, just as he is a convicted charity fraudster.

 

91 felony counts with lots of evidence may well lead to convictions of a host of other crimes, though trump certainly has a good start with sex offender and charity fraudster..

[proton]

10 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

You were there in Bergdorf-Goodman? The civil jury convicted trump of sexual assault, based on the evidence they heard, and awarded Carroll $6 million in damages. Thus, trump is a convicted sex offender, just as he is a convicted charity fraudster.

 

91 felony counts with lots of evidence may well lead to convictions of a host of other crimes, though trump certainly has a good start with sex offender and charity fraudster..

So NOT convicted of rape in a criminal case then

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, proton said:

So NOT convicted of rape in a criminal case then

You were the one that brought up 

 

"never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton"

 

Were they convicted in a criminal case for the above?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Sounds like a good fallback for prosecutors with no real evidence.

Proving Consciousness of guilt is standard legal procedure.

 

During the trials, your internet friends will try to convince you that lots of normal procedures are somehow weird and unusual. Don't fall for their propaganda.

[Danderman123]

33 minutes ago, proton said:

Threats have to be eliminated or fitted up, happened here, in Russia, China, Myanmar. USA is just the same.

Trump is accused of committing crimes, and will be tried for his actions, not his political beliefs.

[Danderman123]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You were the one that brought up 

 

"never sexually abused anyone in the white house as did JFK, LBJ and Clinton"

 

Were they convicted in a criminal case for the above?

History will be the judge in their cases. I don't recall any stories of non-consensual sex in the White House that stood up to scrutiny.

 

Trump, however, has been convicted of sexual abuse.

[proton]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump is accused of committing crimes, and will be tried for his actions, not his political beliefs.

You really believe that ? ????

[rudi49jr]

16 minutes ago, proton said:

You really believe that ? ????

Yes. Unlike Trump supporters and the MAGA crowd, there are still lots of people who don’t believe in all kinds of ridiculous conspiracy theories. People who commit crimes can (and should) be prosecuted. That’s what’s going on here. It’s really as simple as that.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Absolutely, its an example of what can happen, its relevant. Particularly as it happened just after Trump accused Black prosecutors of being “racist.” He has made unsupported claims about their personal lives. And on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump has deployed terms that rhyme with racial slurs as some of his supporters post racist screeds about the same targets.

 

Why do you think judges have warned Trump against any attempt to intimidate witnesses? Because of real world consequences. I know your blind to the relevance but that's not something that surprises me.

At it again. You just can't stop can you? 

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

4 recent polls all said the same thing. Not including the one previously referred to. But since for you, the standard for evidence is whether you care or not, to you that's totally insignificant.

Such dribble.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

At it again. You just can't stop can you? 

 

No canceling out here....lol facts matter