3 out of 4 trials are in the toilet.

Chobham

Loves Spam
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Posts
6,567
And the remaining trial, a trail in search of a crime, is on life support just waiting for the plug to be pulled.
 
Listening and reading the NY case

Its obvious the "judge" is one sided

The case should be tossed based on the testimony
 
"Judge" Aileen Cannon (Trump's possible running mate in 2024) has put a hold on all three Federal trials in order to allow Donald Trump to campaign as an unconvicted Federal felon in 2024.
 
"Judge" Aileen Cannon (Trump's possible running mate in 2024) has put a hold on all three Federal trials in order to allow Donald Trump to campaign as an unconvicted Federal felon in 2024.
she should throw the case out and jail the corrupt SP
 
Since she did not play partisan ball, the Dems are cutting Cannon loose. There will be many jokes, ranging from awful to worse.
 
He didn't do either of those things.
Technically he didn't, he just tried to cover up the fact that it happened.

That whole episode is a head scratcher. The FBI field agents are not normally that sloppy. So the question has to be asked, "Were they directed to do that shit from above, or were they purposely sloppy in an attempt to torpedo the case?" It'll be a long time before we have the answer to that question.
 
Technically he didn't, he just tried to cover up the fact that it happened.

That whole episode is a head scratcher. The FBI field agents are not normally that sloppy. So the question has to be asked, "Were they directed to do that shit from above, or were they purposely sloppy in an attempt to torpedo the case?" It'll be a long time before we have the answer to that question.
The questions are being asked. And the court will rule.

And you'll whine if it goes against you and celebrate if it aligns with you.
 
Project much? I'm not whining at all. In this case the unredacted communications pretty much tell the story. It wouldn't surprise me if the case were to be dismissed with extreme prejudice.
 
Project much? I'm not whining at all. In this case the unredacted communications pretty much tell the story. It wouldn't surprise me if the case were to be dismissed with extreme prejudice.
I never said you were doing either.

The court will rule. You can be surprised or not.
 
At this point, going back to Russian collusion, Jan 6th everything in between and after.

Has he not been charged with anything that would land him in jail because...

A-Maybe these are all witch hunts and he didn't commit the crimes

B-They don't really want him in jail because if he was who could they use to distract people from all of their crimes and corruption?
 
He clearly did commit the crimes- that is the problem.
The issue is, he is too rich and powerful to convict and he can basically buy his way out of trouble.
If you believe in the law, and a just and fair society, you should find this troubling. The fact that you are actually ROOTING for him to get off scott free, is in itself troubling, and speaks volumes about your utter lack of morals.
 
Project much? I'm not whining at all. In this case the unredacted communications pretty much tell the story. It wouldn't surprise me if the case were to be dismissed with extreme prejudice.
All you do is whine, you and the rest of the fat old white guys, commonly referred to as deplorables.
 
He clearly did commit the crimes- that is the problem.
The issue is, he is too rich and powerful to convict and he can basically buy his way out of trouble.
If you believe in the law, and a just and fair society, you should find this troubling. The fact that you are actually ROOTING for him to get off scott free, is in itself troubling, and speaks volumes about your utter lack of morals.
*chuckle* I'm letting the cards fall where they may. It's those that have chosen to engage in "lawfare" that are fucking up by the numbers so if you want to vent, aim your ire at them.
 
ish's predictions have always failed.

always.

every one.

always.

forever.
 
*chuckle* I'm letting the cards fall where they may. It's those that have chosen to engage in "lawfare" that are fucking up by the numbers so if you want to vent, aim your ire at them.
Here again, you are missing the point.

Was it "Lawfare" when Timothy McVeigh was convicted of terrorism?

Was it "Lawfare" when Mohammed Atta was accused of being a terrorist mastermind?

Was it "Lawfare" when they went after Richard Nixon?

What about Ted Kaczinski, another convicted domestic terrorist?

It's not "lawfare" to hold lawbreakers accountable for their crimes, simply because you agree with their views- and even then I would question anyone who calls himself an American and belives in Trump's objectives but that's really besides the point here.

In a lawful and orderly society, there are rules. Not one set of rules for democrats and another set of rules for Republicans. Not one set of rules for the wealthy and another set for the poor, or one set of rules for conservatives and one set of rules for liberals. If you commit a crime- YOU SHOULD FACE CONSEQUENCES.

This is not "lawfare", this is how a just, lawful and democratic society works.

For a person who claims to be a lawyer, I am shocked how much difficulty you have in understanding such a seemingly simple concept. You can't be that stupid, so why are you pretending to be?

What about Bill Clinton, who was impeached- and attempted to be removed from office- over an illicit sexual affair. I bring this one up especially since I'm guessing you probably supported this impeachment. If Clinton broke the law then I'll say what you probably said back then- hold him accountable and prosecute him. If Hillary broke the law, she should be prosecuted.

Trump broke the law. Therefore....
 
  • Like
Reactions: bps
Back
Top