12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

and an equal number who think the earth is flat or  other nonsense. 

Trump was indited by a grand jury, not by the democrats. 

I have asked you several times if you know what a Grand Jury is, and you decline to answer. I am convinced you do not know, as indicated by your posts. 

No that's not true, otherwise there would not be all these bond trump has to pay.  

Indictments are handed down by grand juries after they are introduced by prosecuting attorneys... who are... in regards to every indictment handed down on trump... democrats.  Ever wonder about that???

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

It is true... and if you were really fair minded you would be aware of the fact...

If you had evidence you’d share it.

3 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

yes... and more importantly I support standing behind the outcome... will you?

I shall absolutely accept the verdict of Trump’s jury.

 

Hold me to it.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you had evidence you’d share it.

It is true that President Joe Biden appointed the attorney general who appointed special counsel Jack Smith. Many state and local prosecutors in the United States are elected, including the Democratic Manhattan district attorney suing Mr. Trump on charges related to paying hush money to a porn star, and the Democratic Atlanta-area district attorney reportedly set to indict Mr. Trump on election charges next week... https://www.csmonitor.com › USA › Politics › 2023 › 0809 › Trump-indictments-How-to-tell-if-they-r

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I shall absolutely accept the verdict of Trump’s jury.

 

Hold me to it.

55555555555

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

What the four Trump indictments reveal about American democracy - Vox

The summary in the second-to-last paragraph of your article struck a chord with me:

 

"Trying Trump is good and necessary, as are all the other steps that have been taken to safeguard democracy since his ascent to power."

 

This reinforces my deep-seated beliefs about the legitimacy of the 91 indictments against Trump, as well as the investigations into his election interference, such as The Mueller Investigation, the coercion of Ukraine that led to his impeachment, and the subsequent impeachment for insurrection.

 

It seems that this conclusion may not coincide with, and might even contradict, your viewpoint which implies that all your efforts to state otherwise may have been futile.

 

Edited April 14, 20242 yr by LosLobo

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

The summary in the second-to-last paragraph of your article struck a chord with me:

 

"Trying Trump is good and necessary, as are all the other steps that have been taken to safeguard democracy since his ascent to power."

 

This reinforces my deep-seated beliefs about the legitimacy of the 91 indictments against Trump, as well as the investigations into his election interference, such as The Mueller Investigation, the coercion of Ukraine that led to his impeachment, and the subsequent impeachment for insurrection.

 

It seems that this conclusion may not coincide with, and might even contradict, your viewpoint which implies that all your efforts may have been futile.

Again with all the bull<deleted>... where are the convictions???

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The haters have spoken... no need for a trial... trump is guilty... string him up is the cry... pretty standard fare from the democratic party for decades now... hang him high.

Ever heard Trump say "Lock her up"?

...this is, by far, the weakest criminal case I have ever seen in my 60 years. There is nothing here. There is no misdemeanor, there is no felony, there is no federal crime. The feds refused to prosecute — even Bragg refused to prosecute until some of his young progressive woke prosecutors demanded that he prosecute,” Dershowitz stated.

 

“I have a challenge: name any case in the history of America where anybody was ever prosecuted for failing to disclose a hush money payment on some kind of business form. It’s never happened in the history of this country. And to use an unprecedented jerry-rigged case against the man running against your president, your Democrats, is such an abuse of the legal system, we ought to change our motto from ‘E pluribus unum’ to ‘double standard hypocrisy,'” Dershowitz continued.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/13/alan-dershowitz-slams-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-sean-hannity-new-york/

Edited April 14, 20242 yr by impulse

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not any kind of evidence to back up the claim you made:

 

“their is approximately half of the USA voters who believe the system is currently rigged by the democratic party machine..”

"The belief that the political system works against the interests of conservatives also finds considerable support among the public. Nearly half (48 percent) of Americans believe the political system is stacked against conservatives and people with traditional values."...  After the Ballots are Counted: Conspiracies, Political Violence, and American Exceptionalism - The Survey Center on American Life (americansurveycenter.org)

16 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Indictments are handed down by grand juries after they are introduced by prosecuting attorneys... who are... in regards to every indictment handed down on trump... democrats.  Ever wonder about that???

There’s your claim.

 

Now here’s proof you are talking rot:

 

“Smith, a Harvard Law School grad who is not registered with any political party, started as a prosecutor in 1994 at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under Robert Morgenthau, who was best known for prosecuting mob bosses.”

 

Here’s the source:

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/newsmaker-who-is-jack-smith-special-counsel-who-brought-trump-indictment-2023-08-02/

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s your claim.

 

Now here’s proof you are talking rot:

 

“Smith, a Harvard Law School grad who is not registered with any political party, started as a prosecutor in 1994 at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under Robert Morgenthau, who was best known for prosecuting mob bosses.”

 

Here’s the source:

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/newsmaker-who-is-jack-smith-special-counsel-who-brought-trump-indictment-2023-08-02/

Appointed by a the democrat Garland and told what to do... 

15 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Ever heard Trump say "Lock her up"?

So "schoolyard"

15 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Again with all the bull<deleted>... where are the convictions???

Now you're calling a quotation from the article you posted, supposedly supporting your beliefs, bull<delete>, is this representative of everything you post?

4 hours ago, Tug said:

I’m wondering how much he’s paying maliana to stick around

Malinia has always been it it for his money.

I doubt she had posters of fat orange old men on her bedroom walls as a teenager.

 

A gold digger is just like a hooker/porno whore/ playboy mole.

But smarter.

19 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So "schoolyard"

 

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The haters have spoken... no need for a trial... trump is guilty... string him up is the cry... pretty standard fare from the democratic party for decades now... hang him high.

Seriously, you posted 3 hours ago about the Dems not needing a trial, and then when I reminded you about "Lock her up", you don't have a shred of self-realization. Unless you want people to think you are a troll, can't you admit that the MAGA types were ready to put Hilary in jail without a trial?

 

Conversely, the Dems look forward to the Trump trials, if only for the humor value.

Trump blew up meeting on China threat by obsessing over Stormy Daniels: AT&T CEO

 

 

Randall Stephenson recalled that he was brought to the Oval Office in 2019 to discuss the growing threat, but instead met with a distracted Trump who spent the first 45 minutes ranting about Daniels and male and female relations.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Appointed by a the democrat Garland and told what to do... 

You stated :

 

“Indictments are handed down by grand juries after they are introduced by prosecuting attorneys... who are... in regards to every indictment handed down on trump... democrats. “

It only needed one prosecutor to not bd a Democrat to demonstrate the fallacy of your assertion.

 

Jack Smith is not a Democrat.

 

Your claim was rot.

 

 

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Now you are entering the realm of fairness of the indictment process... their is approximately half of the USA voters who believe the system is currently rigged by the democratic party machine... who are you to say that they are wrong... will the day of reckoning ever appear... we will have to wait and see... so far all that you have are indictments... no convictions. 

You can believe what you want but for an indictment one needs PROOF. 

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Indictments are handed down by grand juries after they are introduced by prosecuting attorneys... who are... in regards to every indictment handed down on trump... democrats.  Ever wonder about that???

Yes I wondered about it often. Have you?

It says a few things,

But first, it is not "Prosecuting attorneys" who introduce prosecution,   but DAs  

  One is that republican DAs or AGs  look the other way when it comes to trump and introduce nothing.  

  Two trump's base of operation and where trump committed most of his crimes  was New York  and NY is  democratic state, so of course  the DAs would be democrats. Which is why trump picked up and changed his residence to Florida, a republican state so his crimes there can be ignored. 

  Three , since only Democrats will recommend prosecution , can you imagine how many more crimes is trump guilty of? , but since they are under republican DAs they will never see the light of day. 

  Four If Democratic District attorneys introduced something for political reasons and of no substance, the Grand Jury , which is made up of randomly selected jurors, would listen to the evidence and decline to recommend indictment. 

But they did not , did they?

 

 

14 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

You can believe what you want but for an indictment one needs PROOF. 

Just not true... indictments do not require PROOF... convictions require PROOF... and not always then... List of wrongful convictions in the United States... List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Just not true... indictments do not require PROOF... convictions require PROOF... and not always then... List of wrongful convictions in the United States... List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia

A Grand Jury reviews the evidence and testimony to determine if the indictments are warranted, the Grand Jury also has the right to conduct investigations and subpoena witnesses and evidence.

 

Welcome to team ‘Convictions are sometimes wrong’ 

 

I expect that’s going to be your argument if Trump is convicted.

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A Grand Jury reviews the evidence and testimony to determine if the indictments are warranted, the Grand Jury also has the right to conduct investigations and subpoena witnesses and evidence.

 

Welcome to team ‘Convictions are sometimes wrong’ 

 

I expect that’s going to be your argument if Trump is convicted.

 

Much like your argument will be _______________ when he is not???

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Much like your argument will be _______________ when he is not???

I’ve told you.

 

I will accept any verdict handed down by any of the juries in any of Trump’s trials.

 

And I also said ‘Hold me to it’.

 

You, on the other hand, have been silent on the matter.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 You, on the other hand, have been silent on the matter.

Hardly... 

5 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Hardly... 

ok, you’ve put a lot of effort into arguing Trump should not be held accountable to the law.

 

So let’s put it to the test:

 

 Will you accept any verdict handed down by any of the juries in any of Trump’s trials?

 

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

ok, you’ve put a lot of effort into arguing Trump should not be held accountable to the law.

 

So let’s put it to the test:

 

 

 Will you accept any verdict handed down by any of the juries in any of Trump’s trials?

 

 

I would be very surprised if a clear answer is forthcoming.

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I would be very surprised if a clear answer is forthcoming.

 

 

The question is MAGA Kryptonite.

 

 

On 4/14/2024 at 6:53 AM, sirineou said:

No need to be explained.

It is really a very simple case,involving  campaign finance violations and falsification  business records.

One defendant was convicted , and not is the turn of the other.  

April 14, 2024

 

The jurors will be assessing Mr. Cohen, too. If even one does not believe his testimony, the trial could end with a hung jury, a clear victory for the former president. Todd Blanche, the lawyer leading the case, has told Mr. Trump in recent weeks that he can win the trial, people with knowledge of the discussion said.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/nyregion/trump-trial-manhattan.html

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

The jurors will be assessing Mr. Cohen, too. If even one does not believe his testimony, the trial could end with a hung jury

As id Cohen is the only witness and all the evidence