Trump Indicted!

[EnglishEdward]

Then I'd say he has an excellent chance of acquital provided that he is humble and admits a mistake.

But Donald Trump may, being himself, be bombastic and succeed in antagonising the whole jury.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Then I'd say he has an excellent chance of acquital provided that he is humble and admits a mistake.

There's that wry, understated humor you Brits are known for.

 

[JollyRoger]

They claim Trump was napping in court yesterday, but that is fake news. He was just practicing his testimony by reenacting his amorous encounter with Stormy beyond the first 30 seconds.

 

[Core Imposter]

This is not quite the equivalent of a Manhattan cocktail party, at which Trump's conviction would be certain regardless of evidence. There should be the possibility of at least one ordinary person of the jury. And there could be more. But there is no semblance of a fair trial. It's an attempted lynching from the beginning.

There are many more jurisdictions in the US where there would be no possibility of a Trump conviction than those where he might be found guilty. Which is one of many reasons why lawfare is such a poor idea. Half the country will not accept the result no matter what happens.

So, the one thing we know for certain before this trial gets underway is this. This will make things worse for everyone. O foolish men.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There is no such thing as "lawfare." When there is evidence of a crime, prosecutors bring it before a grand jury in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. If that grand jury concludes that there is sufficient evidence, it is put before a jury. If that jury determines there is guilt, the perpetrator is punished. How anyone other than the jury feels about the matter is irrelevant.

 

[Lexicus]

There is no such thing as "lawfare."

This is ridiculous and you must know it. Of course there is such a thing as "lawfare". What's currently happening to DeRay McKesson is lawfare. Georgia bringing RICO cases against the Stop Cop City movement is lawfare. The issue is not that lawfare doesn't exist, it's that the right is projecting in claiming that Trump is a victim of it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But there is no semblance of a fair trial. It's an attempted lynching from the beginning.

Lets hear why. Give us some facts and evidence why this is the case.

You won't. Because you can't. That is always the case. You just claim and when pressed you dodge and escape into vagueries.

You all do.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is not quite the equivalent of a Manhattan cocktail party, at which Trump's conviction would be certain regardless of evidence. There should be the possibility of at least one ordinary person of the jury. And there could be more. But there is no semblance of a fair trial. It's an attempted lynching from the beginning.

There are many more jurisdictions in the US where there would be no possibility of a Trump conviction than those where he might be found guilty. Which is one of many reasons why lawfare is such a poor idea. Half the country will not accept the result no matter what happens.

So, the one thing we know for certain before this trial gets underway is this. This will make things worse for everyone. O foolish men.

Criminals usually claim they are innocent and the bigger their crimes, the louder their cries of "I'm innocent." Trump is no different. If he were actually innocent he would want a trial to clear his name, but Trump wants to delay the trials so he shut them down if elected president. That is not the practice of an innocent man. You will claim he is being persecuted but as ziggy said, you cannot provide any actual evidence that such a statement is true. You don't seem to actually understand how the US legal system works and why we have grand juries.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Another person has already stood trial, been convicted and served time for this crime. But Trump is somehow innocent of it.

Lawfare

 

[Core Imposter]

Criminals usually claim they are innocent and the bigger their crimes, the louder their cries of "I'm innocent." Trump is no different. If he were actually innocent he would want a trial to clear his name, but Trump wants to delay the trials so he shut them down if elected president. That is not the practice of an innocent man. You will claim he is being persecuted but as ziggy said, you cannot provide any actual evidence that such a statement is true. You don't seem to actually understand how the US legal system works and why we have grand juries.

I am tired of you attacking and demeaning me and my opinions. I don't attack people here. I refute ideas and promote views but I don't engage in personal attacks. If I do, shame on me and feel free to point it out. But it is shameful for you to parade around as someone interested in a fair discourse and yet take potshots at people who just happen to be on the opposite political spectrum and doesn't share your views on religion.

Yes, you have the power to censor and ban me, but it is not derived from anything but circumstance. Not merit, yours or your ideas.

 

[Farm Boy]

Another person has already stood trial, been convicted and served time for this crime. But Trump is somehow innocent of it.

Lawfare

Armorer in Rust is going to jail now. Just her.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am tired of you attacking and demeaning me and my opinions. I don't attack people here. I refute ideas and promote views but I don't engage in personal attacks. If I do, shame on me and feel free to point it out. But it is shameful for you to parade around as someone interested in a fair discourse and yet take potshots at people who just happen to be on the opposite political spectrum and doesn't share your views on religion.

Yes, you have the power to censor and ban me, but it is not derived from anything but circumstance. Not merit, yours or your ideas.

You are entitled to your opinions but rarely support them with any sort of facts. You make many claims against Biden and show support for fake claims made by Trump and the GOP. You do not answer questions put to you. A discussion that is nothing but trading opinions becomes a "he said she said" dialogue without substance.

But there is no semblance of a fair trial. It's an attempted lynching from the beginning.

When you say things like this ^^^ but cannot or will not provide any evidence of the trial not being fair, you do not actually add to the discussion. How has the trial, which started Monday, not been fair? Lynching is taking a person to the nearest tree and hanging them in public without any discussion. Trump certainly has not been nor is he being lynched.

Perhaps you think the indictments are unjustified or inappropriate? Please tell us why you think so? Was the Grand Jury indictment rigged? How so? What reason do you have to think it was? Is there secret information about that process you know about? None of your political remarks have been censored. You get criticized because you only offer opinions and no actual facts. IIRC you have been asked if you believe that the 2020 election was rigged and DJT should be president. IIRC you have implied that you think so but again, you do not contribute any actual evidence of it being so.

To have a thoughtful dialogue there needs to be engagement by both sides: Ideas and opinions supported with facts or real life examples. those of us who do not support Trump have provided many examples of why based on actual events. You claim that Biden is going to destroy America without any examples of how he is doing or what he has done in the past to do so. Biden encouraged Congress to pass the biggest infrastructure in 50 years. then he signed. is that what you mean? Is Biden's foreign policy plan to support Ukraine with weapons part of his destruction of America? OK, how so?

Drive by criticism of Democrats is not a dialogue. Please engage us with more.

 

[Akka]

You don't seem to actually understand how the US legal system works and why we have grand juries.

What we're seeing here is not a problem of not actually understanding legal system, that's more of a simple denial of the very principle of justice, to be replaced by mindless support for a preferred side. The usual "I'll ignore reality and substitute my own desires instead" from any fanatic.
The fact that he simply never answer about any fact showing Trump's culpability, fail to provide any evidence of his innocence, and fall back to empty accusations instead is making it obvious.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You won't. Because you can't. That is always the case. You just claim and when pressed you dodge and escape into vagueries.

This time it was the victim routine. No support was provided. None ever is.

 

[Lexicus]

Armorer in Rust is going to jail now. Just her.

"You can't convict me, I'm Alec Baldwin!"

I am tired of you attacking and demeaning me and my opinions.

I'm the only one doing that. BJ never has.

 

[Cutlass]

This is not quite the equivalent of a Manhattan cocktail party, at which Trump's conviction would be certain regardless of evidence. There should be the possibility of at least one ordinary person of the jury. And there could be more. But there is no semblance of a fair trial. It's an attempted lynching from the beginning.

There are many more jurisdictions in the US where there would be no possibility of a Trump conviction than those where he might be found guilty. Which is one of many reasons why lawfare is such a poor idea. Half the country will not accept the result no matter what happens.

So, the one thing we know for certain before this trial gets underway is this. This will make things worse for everyone. O foolish men.

Claiming lawfare is like claiming Trump won the election, or that the election was rigged.

Moderator Action: Parts snipped Birdjaguar

.... You are intentionally undermining faith in the government, in the nation's institutions, and in the nation itself. And the only purpose in saying so is to put an end to the United States as a free country.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am tired of you attacking and demeaning me and my opinions. I don't attack people here. I refute ideas and promote views but I don't engage in personal attacks.

I fail to see how Bird is “attacking” and “demeaning” you. He’s having a civil discourse with you, yet you’re stubbornly resisting to budge and pull the victim card when you experience any slight pushback. Even other people on the thread are asking for evidence, yet you haven’t provided any.

 

[Cutlass]

Except to tell you that hell is hot. So, let's do that. Folks, hell is hot.

Tradition tells us that the lowest pit of hell is reserved for the traitors. And yet this is where you choose to go.

Interesting.

 

[GenMarshall]

The lawfare campaign being waged against Donald Trump by the American left is so plainly self-evident and self-documented that only those caught up in mass psychosis and MSNBC viewers could fail to recognize it. I could easily memorialize it, and many will publish multi-volume books about it in the coming years

What is this "law fare campaign" you are speaking of? If you have proof that there is an actual lawfare campaign against Trump, please provide receipts. Right now, I'm just reading things that are no different than Qanon conspiracy theories. All I'm seeing is Trump getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and saying "That wasn't me, my hands weren't in the cookie jar I swear".

 

[Core Imposter]

What is this "law fare campaign" you are speaking of? If you have proof that there is an actual lawfare campaign against Trump, please provide receipts. Right now, I'm just reading things that are no different than Qanon conspiracy theories. All I'm seeing is Trump getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and saying "That wasn't me, my hands weren't in the cookie jar I swear".

Why are you reading Qanon conspiracy theories? I never have. Are those on tick tock? I don't do social media. I live in the real world, where you can experience real world things. Like the lawfare campaign against Donald Trump. It sounds like you are locked into the left-wing propaganda feed. I suggest you do independent research. I will look and see if I can recommend some books.