Danderman123 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said: Headline NY Times 25 April EDT: U.S. Supreme Court Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump Such a ruling in the case, on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution, could delay any trial until after the November election. The Supremes indeed may rule in a way that delays his DC trial. Hard to believe they would give Trump full immunity, but they could delay in making their decision, and then provide a ruling that creates more delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said: Headline NY Times 25 April EDT: U.S. Supreme Court Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump Such a ruling in the case, on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution, could delay any trial until after the November election. The Supremes indeed may rule in a way that delays his DC trial. Hard to believe they would give Trump full immunity, but they could delay in making their decision, and then provide a ruling that creates more delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 45 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: The Supremes indeed may rule in a way that delays his DC trial. Hard to believe they would give Trump full immunity, but they could delay in making their decision, and then provide a ruling that creates more delay. As best as I read the hearing they are looking for some 'some immunity' but not 'total immunity' decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 On 4/22/2024 at 3:48 PM, Danderman123 said: Once again, the trial isn't about Trump's adultery in 2006, it's about writing checks in 2016-17 to cover up his adultery. The coverup wasn't uncovered until 2018-19. You don't seem to know the basic facts of this case. and once again you are claiming to know what I know. You don't, but I expect you will keep deflecting as you don't have much else. Am I mistaken, but wasn't 2019 over 4 years ago, yet they waited till the election cycle to prosecute. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Danderman123 said: The Supremes indeed may rule in a way that delays his DC trial. Hard to believe they would give Trump full immunity, but they could delay in making their decision, and then provide a ruling that creates more delay. IMO they'd have to be mad to provide full immunity, as that would allow presidents in the future to literally get away with murder. I hope they do delay the trial till next year as IMO the indictments are political, and unfortunately the SCOTUS can't rule on that, but they can give him a fair shot at the presidency. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danderman123 Posted April 26 Popular Post Share Posted April 26 47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: and once again you are claiming to know what I know. You don't, but I expect you will keep deflecting as you don't have much else. Am I mistaken, but wasn't 2019 over 4 years ago, yet they waited till the election cycle to prosecute. The current DA was elected in 2022. The prior DA declined to prosecute because he was leaving office. These are basic facts, posted here frequently, but you just don't seem to get it. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 21 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: The current DA was elected in 2022. The prior DA declined to prosecute because he was leaving office. These are basic facts, posted here frequently, but you just don't seem to get it. Trump lawyer: Manhattan DA won’t charge former president Updated: 06/28/2021 03:49 PM EDT Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has indicated he does not currently plan to charge the Trump Organization with crimes related to allegations of “hush money” payments and real estate value manipulations, according to a personal lawyer for Donald Trump. “We asked, ‘Is there anything else?’” Fischetti told POLITICO. “They said, ‘No.’” When asked if the meeting touched on allegations made by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and by adult film star and director Stormy Daniels, Fischetti replied, “Nothing. Not a word on that.” https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/28/trump-lawyer-manhattan-da-wont-charge-496768 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 20 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: The current DA was elected in 2022. The prior DA declined to prosecute because he was leaving office. These are basic facts, posted here frequently, but you just don't seem to get it. All you have are excuses, excuses, excuses. I suppose it was just a coincidence that 91 indictments just happened in time for an election cycle. Every time you post something like that I just hope more that the Donald wins, to see the snowflakes crying on U Tube. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: All you have are excuses, excuses, excuses. I suppose it was just a coincidence that 91 indictments just happened in time for an election cycle. Every time you post something like that I just hope more that the Donald wins, to see the snowflakes crying on U Tube. The common denominator among the trials is the delay tactics used by the Trump attorneys. Perhaps rather than conspiracy theories, you should think about Trump's actual defenses against the charges. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Just now, Danderman123 said: The common denominator among the trials is the delay tactics used by the Trump attorneys. Perhaps rather than conspiracy theories, you should think about Trump's actual defenses against the charges. It's the defense's job to do whatever it takes that is of benefit for the client. Seems that they are taking advantage of the prosecution's incompetence. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlinclaifornia Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: The common denominator among the trials is the delay tactics used by the Trump attorneys. Perhaps rather than conspiracy theories, you should think about Trump's actual defenses against the charges. That is all this idiot has is BS hating those not MAGA, he hopes get crushed. Meaningless ignorant Fox cultist. I hope his misery comes to pass. See his lifeless ranting come November 5th. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post pomchop Posted April 26 Popular Post Share Posted April 26 18 hours ago, BigStar said: Sad. That's not at all how it works with political persecution. "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime," Lavrentiy Beria famously said. What wasn't a crime, becomes a crime (with law enacted retroactively if necessary) or is simply alleged to be possibly a crime that'll have to be defended at ruinous cost, possibly (even probably) before biased jurors. Ruination of a career may be threatened: Jay Bratt, the special counsel’s lead prosecutor, allegedly threatened Trump staff member Walt Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, with sabotaging his judicial nomination to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia if he could not get Nauta to turn on Trump, according to a newly unsealed motion originally filed in June 2023. --https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/24/here-are-the-3-most-shocking-discoveries-just-unsealed-in-trump-classified-docs-case/ Indictments, to which our more feminine members cling religiously, don't mean a lot, as a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. No defense is presented. I'll leave it at that, because you're too naive for this discussion, and it's the usual waste of time attempting to educate. if you do not want to be charged with crimes then it might be a good idea not to commit crimes and leave massive piles of evidence behind.....u have now been "educated". 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 19 hours ago, BigStar said: Sad. That's not at all how it works with political persecution. "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime," Lavrentiy Beria famously said. What wasn't a crime, becomes a crime (with law enacted retroactively if necessary) or is simply alleged to be possibly a crime that'll have to be defended at ruinous cost, possibly (even probably) before biased jurors. Ruination of a career may be threatened: Jay Bratt, the special counsel’s lead prosecutor, allegedly threatened Trump staff member Walt Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, with sabotaging his judicial nomination to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia if he could not get Nauta to turn on Trump, according to a newly unsealed motion originally filed in June 2023. --https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/24/here-are-the-3-most-shocking-discoveries-just-unsealed-in-trump-classified-docs-case/ Indictments, to which our more feminine members cling religiously, don't mean a lot, as a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. No defense is presented. I'll leave it at that, because you're too naive for this discussion, and it's the usual waste of time attempting to educate. How did Beria's dictum work out for Joe Biden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, pomchop said: if you do not want to be charged with crimes then it might be a good idea not to commit crimes and leave massive piles of evidence behind.....u have now been "educated". The trial right now is to determine whether crimes have been committed as charged. Edited April 26 by jerrymahoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStar Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: How did Beria's dictum work out for Joe Biden? Working great w/ regard to lawfare against Trump. And great for him, too, since he's protected by the leftists in power. No prosecution for him for willful retention and revelation of classified documents, hee hee. No prosecution for him and Hunter for suppressing the truth about the laptop before, and after, the election. Tara Reade's credible allegation of sexual assault ignored, swept under the carpet. Etc., etc. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, BigStar said: Working great w/ regard to lawfare against Trump. And great for him, too, since he's protected by the leftists in power. No prosecution for him for willful retention and revelation of classified documents, hee hee. No prosecution for him and Hunter for suppressing the truth about the laptop before, and after, the election. Tara Reade's credible allegation of sexual assault ignored, swept under the carpet. Etc., etc. If you believe Tara Reade, you are really far gone. So why couldn't the Republicans in Congress pin a crime on Biden? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker88 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: All you have are excuses, excuses, excuses. I suppose it was just a coincidence that 91 indictments just happened in time for an election cycle. Every time you post something like that I just hope more that the Donald wins, to see the snowflakes crying on U Tube. All you have is willful ignorance. If you took the time to study the various cases, you would learn a few things: -Investigations take time -trump's tactics have been delay delay delay You are terribly confused. You think the charges and cases are happening now because the Dems wanted it in the election cycle, when the reality is trump's tactic of delay is so the trials are pushed as far into the future as possible in the hope he wins re-election and can pardon himself. SC Smith, once appointed specifically had only one person indicted (trump) for the various attempts to overthrow the election. Smith also asked the SC to rule last December on immunity, so the trial could do away with that excuse and get started. The SC refused to hear it, allowing trump to slow walk it through the District Court, and when he lost that, ask the SC to take it on. "Surprisingly", the SC decided to take it on now, and also pushed it back until the final day of their current session. Clearly they are aiding trump's delay tactic, as the District Court ruling was quite clear that immunity is totally against the Constitution. The US is not a monarchy where royalty is above the law. Many State officials thought the fake elector and election subversion would all be handled at the Federal level, so not until Smith surprised them by indicting only trump, did they begin their own investigations into the fraud, such as AZ just announced this week. Again, investigations take time, so it is only now AZ indicted the fake electors and those who promoted it. All of those bad actors now face State charges, although SC Smith could later amend his indictment of trump to include them, since he has already been slowed by trump's defenses and the SUpreme Court lackeys. One wonders why a non-American would be so enamored of trump. Do you like his excuses for losers, so that those who failed in life need not ever accept personal responsibility? That is what works so well for him in the US, but it comes as a bit of a surprise that the cult attracts people internationally, too. I guess losers everywhere need excuses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStar Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 minute ago, Danderman123 said: If you believe Tara Reade, you are really far gone. Or if you believe E. Jean Carroll. But you ignored the point, of course. Where's her day in court? 2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: So why couldn't the Republicans in Congress pin a crime on Biden? Disingenuous feigning ignorance. Stonewalling, and they don't have a sufficient majority. Couldn't even get Mayorkas. The DOJ itself can't, or rather won't, prosecute that "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” So I'll leave you with the last word, as you're really just trolling. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 minutes ago, BigStar said: DOJ itself can't, or rather won't, prosecute that "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” DOJ doesn't prosecute people who find classified documents and return them promptly. You know, like Mike Pence. If you think Joe Biden should have been prosecuted, how about Trump, who didn't return classified documents, and tried to hide them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: It's the defense's job to do whatever it takes that is of benefit for the client. Seems that they are taking advantage of the prosecution's incompetence. If the Trump is attempting to delay the trials, why are the Trump lovers complaining that the trials are delayed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Meanwhile, Trump's defense is being hammered by the witnesses. Did Trump have an affair with Karen McDougal? Trump says no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 16 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: If the Trump is attempting to delay the trials, why are the Trump lovers complaining that the trials are delayed? The only people complaining about the delays are the people that want to see Trump convicted. Pointing out that the state had years to bring the charges but waited until the current election cycle to do so is not "complaining that the trials are delayed...", but rather pointing out the weaponization of the DOJ. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_Money Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Very odd indeed. Appears the “Get Trump” campaign is valid. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-prosecutor-quit-top-doj-post-lowly-ny-job-likely-bid-get-former-president-expert-says 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_Money Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Everything you need to know! https://www.foxnews.com/video/6351767870112 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Yellowtail Posted April 26 Popular Post Share Posted April 26 So it's been a week and we're still not clear on what the charges are, except the reimbursement to Trump's lawyer was entered as "legal expenses", that about it? 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Yellowtail said: So it's been a week and we're still not clear on what the charges are, except the reimbursement to Trump's lawyer was entered as "legal expenses", that about it? Watch and learn. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 I wonder why the judge is not allowing the defense to call campaign finance experts, any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now