• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Trump Indicted!

You can see the bias of DC jurors in the Michael Mann v Simberg and Steyn case where Steyn was hit with a million dollar judgement simply because he is conservative. Trump has no chance at a fair trial in liberal jurisdictions.

The site looks like a clone of RealClear Politics.

Where is Belgium at again?
I know it's in Europe. French, German, Swiss, Dutch. Belch?
Sandwiched between France, The Netherlands, Germany, and a small border with Luxembourg. This concludes Geography Now!.
 
It is not likely that anyone will be around to write the lost history of the civilization of America, much less the story of its last dark prince, but if it were told, the most brilliant flash of humanity would be tragically revealed to have fallen due to its inability to control its thirst for the most base and common of lusts. From Elvis to Trump, the selling of the national soul for nothing, absolutely nothing, and now the pagan hordes rise up to swallow our children and somewhere a star ceases to twinkle in silent salute to the passing as all things await the cleansing wrath of a righteous God. Come Lord Jesus. Come quickly.
 
Last edited:
It is not likely that anyone will be around to write the lost history of the civilization of America, much less the story of its last dark prince, but if it were told, the most brilliant flash of humanity would be tragically revealed to have fallen due to its inability to control its thirst for the most base and common of lusts. From Elvis to Trump, the selling of the national soul for nothing, absolutely nothing, and now the pagan hordes rise up to swallow our children and somewhere a star ceases to twinkle in silent salute to the passing as all things await the cleansing wrath of a righteous God. Come Lord Jesus. Come quickly.
Maybe the Big J could be given some labors, like cleaning out the Guantanamo stables.
 
I think it significant that someone as never-Trump as Jeb Bush is critical of the decision. TBH there are many who can't or won't look at things in an objective fashion because of partisanship. I struggle with that myself.

There is no way that the NY case would have ever been brought or even come to someone's mind but for the politics. This ought to stop everyone dead in their tracks. Do we want to live in a society where the law is used as political force? We just have gotten past the point, barely, where someone's career could be derailed because of some indiscretion of youth. Now, this is back on the table.

Perhaps if you have never run a business you wouldn't know. But virtually everyone who has run a business has ridden the line and no successful business has ever stayed one hundred percent in their lane. The world isn't shaped like that, there are far too many regulations and subjective judgements. Using the absolute letter of the law and the strictest interpretations, 99% of businesses, or more, could be found guilty of something that could be played up into a big deal. And this is what you will get in the future as a result of this state sponsored persecution of a former president that is being driven for the purpose of political advantage. The remedy has become the crime.

The RICO case in Georgia is ridiculous and the documents case is as well. The only case that is possibly legitimate is the Jan. 6th case but that has to be moved out of the DC jurisdiction or it will never be bonified.

I was gratified to see several of the prominent posters here acknowledge the bias that is inherent in jury/judge shopping by federal prosecutors. It gives me a little hope.
 
Last edited:
There is no way that the NY case would have ever been brought or even come to someone's mind but for the politics.
They thought of going after these non-famous non-political people:


Prosecutors and indeed all of us are compelled by the rule of law to consider how such a charge compares to past prosecutions. Are like cases being treated alike?

Here it appears they are. Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized.


And this is what you will get in the future as a result of this state sponsored persecution of a former president that is being driven for the purpose of political advantage
Our judicial system itself has safeguards against any such thing happening.

The RICO case in Georgia is ridiculous
Two defendants, lawyers themselves, pled guilty rather than fight a "ridiculous" case? Or did they plead guilty because they knew the state had the dead-to-right?

And what's most objectionable is that you parrot Trump's line, which is not even to protest his own innocence, but rather to assert that he should be allowed to commit crimes.
 
Last edited:
I think it significant that someone as never-Trump as Jeb Bush is critical of the decision. TBH there are many who can't or won't look at things in an objective fashion because of partisanship. I struggle with that myself.

There is no way that the NY case would have ever been brought or even come to someone's mind but for the politics. This ought to stop everyone dead in their tracks. Do we want to live in a society where the law is used as political force? We just have gotten past the point, barely, where someone's career could be derailed because of some indiscretion of youth. Now, this is back on the table.

Perhaps if you have never run a business you wouldn't know. But virtually everyone who has run a business has ridden the line and no successful business has ever stayed one hundred percent in their lane. The world isn't shaped like that, there are far too many regulations and subjective judgements. Using the absolute letter of the law and the strictest interpretations, 99% of businesses, or more, could be found guilty of something that could be played up into a big deal. And this is what you will get in the future as a result of this state sponsored persecution of a former president that is being driven for the purpose of political advantage. The remedy has become the crime.

The RICO case in Georgia is ridiculous and the documents case is as well. The only case that is possibly legitimate is the Jan. 6th case but that has to be moved out of the DC jurisdiction or it will never be bonified.

I was gratified to see several of the prominent posters here acknowledge the bias that is inherent in jury/judge shopping by federal prosecutors. It gives me a little hope.
Remind me that we should audit any business you've run.
 
Perhaps if you have never run a business you wouldn't know. But virtually everyone who has run a business has ridden the line and no successful business has ever stayed one hundred percent in their lane.

Trump has been running crooked companies all his life. He learned it from his father. From 2016.



Even the Feds go after small business fraud.

I know the Stew Leonard case well because my wife was from Westport CT and her family shopped at his stores weekly.
 
They thought of going after these non-famous non-political people:






Our judicial system itself has safeguards against any such thing happening.


Two defendants, lawyers themselves, pled guilty rather than fight a "ridiculous" case? Or did they plead guilty because they knew the state had the dead-to-right?

And what's most objectionable is that you parrot Trump's line, which is not even to protest his own innocence, but rather to assert that he should be allowed to commit crimes.
Yes? I actually think it's worse....I think the judge thinks his name will go down in history as "I defunded evil", like what happened to the kkk... I don't think he knows how to "read the room".
 
Yes? I actually think it's worse....I think the judge thinks his name will go down in history as "I defunded evil", like what happened to the kkk... I don't think he knows how to "read the room".
I have no idea what this means. What is worse than what other thing? In what sense is a judge supposed to "read a room"?
 
I have no idea what this means. What is worse than what other thing? In what sense is a judge supposed to "read a room"?
My comment addresses your response to core. He made some generalizations to which you responded with some specifics. You told him he was parroting trump.

I responded yes?
Then I went in to express my opinion. That the judge (an old "liberal") thinks himself quite grand, "defunding evil", as was done to the kkk. I then wondered where this judge was in 1981? Which is not 2023.
 
You still haven't answered either of my questions. What do you think is "worse"? And what other thing is it worse than? I can't puzzle out the referent to your pronoun.

And what do you mean when you fault the judge for not "reading the room"? I only know that phrase in reference to, say, comedians who make a joke that won't go over with a particular audience. How does that apply here?
 
You still haven't answered either of my questions. What do you think is "worse"? And what other thing is it worse than? I can't puzzle out the referent to your pronoun.

And what do you mean when you fault the judge for not "reading the room"? I only know that phrase in reference to, say, comedians who make a joke that won't go over with a particular audience. How does that apply here?
I'm guessing he thinks that the judge didn't pay attention to Trump's attorneys "truthfulness". :lol:
 
I'm guessing he thinks that the judge didn't pay attention to Trump's attorneys "truthfulness". :lol:
... funny but I don't think any lawyer (on either side) really had anything to do with this :dunno:
You still haven't answered either of my questions. What do you think is "worse"? And what other thing is it worse than? I can't puzzle out the referent to your pronoun.

And what do you mean when you fault the judge for not "reading the room"? I only know that phrase in reference to, say, comedians who make a joke that won't go over with a particular audience. How does that apply here?
Trump being guilty is bad enough, the judgement is worse (guess I had core in mind when answering that part). I take "read the room" as " context".
 
Top Bottom