Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[dkovic77]

For better or worse the feminist movement has driven a wedge between men and women and the institution of traditional marriage. What that portends for society going forward is defined by the declining marriage rates in the US. For instance:

1. Never Married: About 47% of Black women have never been married. This is a big difference when compared to all women in America, of whom only 31% have never been married.
2. Currently Married: Only 26% of Black women are currently married. This is quite different from all women in America, where 47% are currently married.
3. Separated or Divorced:
   • Separated: Black women are slightly more likely to be separated from their spouses, with a rate of 3%, compared to 2% for all women.
   • Divorced: The rates are closer when it comes to being divorced. About 13% of Black women are divorced, which is just a bit higher than the 12% rate for all women.

https://blackdemographics.com/population/black-women-statistics/

BTW we can see when this all began to change to where they are today:

https://blackdemographics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Black-Women-Historical-Marriage-1890-to-2010.jpg

Right about the time the feminist movement was in full throttle and the big federal welfare programs began to kick in and many black women were forced to marry the government and drive the men out of their homes. Until then black women married at a higher rate than white women: https://blackdemographics.com/population/black-women-statistics/

If you're interested about who started this site, go here:

https://blackdemographics.com/contact-me/

So the downward trend started with you eh? No one wanted to marry you so you have to come up with a whole plan why?

You just are not a people person. It’s okay to admit it. First step always is.

 

[icanhelp1]

It wouldn't matter who they were...you'd find a way to denigrate their ability to be objective towards the case.

You’d be wrong.

 

[ll74]

You’d be wrong.

I'm not. The court isn't the issue. Your guy is getting his due and you don't like it
..so anyone that might possibly rule against him is the problem. It will be the jurors and then their families' social media and campaign contributions and then their line of work .......you'll find out why they made their decisions against your guy because that's what you do.

 

[dkovic77]

You’d be wrong.

Speaking of wrong, look who shows up on cue.

 

[Bn2f]

I don’t think the question as to whether they were Trump haters or not was on the questionnaire.

I’m going to let you off the hook and tell you that you do not have to answer because I don’t think that you meant what you said. I think what you were hinting at was that these two lawyers would provide the rest of jurors with the skewed view of the law that HisArpy frequently dispenses to you here.

But I would agree…

*There will not be a directed verdict in trump’s favor.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don’t think the question as to whether they were Trump haters or not was on the questionnaire.

Still doesn’t explain why Trump’s attorneys wouldn’t ask about that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Speaking of wrong, look who shows up on cue.

Rather uncanny, dontcha think?

 

[dkovic77]

Rather uncanny, dontcha think?

Must have had a deep fryer break.

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm not. The court isn't the issue. Your guy is getting his due and you don't like it

The whole trial is baseless. Typical democrats weaponizing the justice system to eliminate an opponent. You should be ashamed that your party has sunk to this level of judicial lawfare. This is exposing you democrats for what you really are * vile Anti-American /anti democracy* hypocrites.

..so anyone that might possibly rule against him is the problem. It will be the jurors and then their families' social media and campaign contributions and then their line of work .......you'll find out why they made their decisions against your guy because that's what you do.

Wrong again! Now your describing democrat behavior. This whole trial is an attempt to confuse the jury with non-relevant salacious testimony backed up from a serial perjurer.

 

[ll74]

The whole trial is baseless.

Yes, I get that you believe that. The prosecution can either make their case or not

Typical democrats weaponizing the justice system to eliminate an opponent. You should be ashamed that your party has sunk to this level of judicial lawfare. This is exposing you democrats for what you really are * vile Anti-American /anti democracy* hypocrites.

The Republicans have rejected democracy for four years.

Wrong again! Now your describing democrat behavior. This whole trial is an attempt to confuse the jury with non-relevant salacious testimony backed up from a serial perjurer.

Reichy is literally accusing the jury of not being capable of being objective.

 

[icanhelp1]

I’m going to let you off the hook and tell you that you do not have to answer because I don’t think that you meant what you said. I think what you were hinting at was that these two lawyers would provide the rest of jurors with the skewed view of the law that HisArpy frequently dispenses to you here.

But I would agree…

*There will not be a directed verdict in trump’s favor.

No there won't, the judge is in over his head. There are so many reversible errors that he could have acted on but didn't . Now we get to watch how he fucks up the jury's final instruction.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, I get that you believe that. The prosecution can either make their case or not


The Republicans have rejected democracy for four years.


Reichy is literally accusing the jury of not being capable of being objective.

Hopefully if it goes to jury deliberation these attorneys will clarify the law and explain that no crime was established.

 

[ll74]

No there won't, the judge is in over his head. There are so many reversible errors that he could have acted on but didn't . Now we get to watch how he fucks up the jury's final instruction.

The defense can raise objections

 

[KeithD]

My congressman, Bob (not)Good, was in court in New York today as part of Donald Trump's sycophant team. I hope someone remembered to close and lock all of the gates into Virginia so he can't get back in again.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The whole trial is baseless. Typical democrats weaponizing the justice system to eliminate an opponent. You should be ashamed that your party has sunk to this level of judicial lawfare. This is exposing you democrats for what you really are * vile Anti-American /anti democracy* hypocrites.

Wrong again! Now your describing democrat behavior. This whole trial is an attempt to confuse the jury with non-relevant salacious testimony backed up from a serial perjurer.

I’m curious if the defense attorneys have argued that position in court and what evidence they’ve presented to back it up.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Hopefully if it goes to jury deliberation these attorneys will clarify the law and explain that no crime was established.

The only instruction from the Judge you would agree with is if he said: the jury must disregard all evidence presented by the prosecution, and find the defendant not guilty".

You have no objectivity, your head is so far up Trump's ass, you're treading in bile.

 

[HisArpy]

My congressman, Bob (not)Good, was in court in New York today as part of Donald Trump's sycophant team. I hope someone remembered to close and lock all of the gates into Virginia so he can't get back in again.

So you wish to deny a sitting congressman his Constitutional right to free travel as well as advocate interfering with a congressman while he is traveling to/from congress?

You gots yourself big problems if you're thinking that's ok.

 

[icanhelp1]

The only instruction from the Judge you would agree with is if he said: the jury must disregard all evidence presented by the prosecution, and find the defendant not guilty".

That’s exactly what should happen, actually he should’ve recused himself the first day, or thrown the case out of court.

You have no objectivity, your head is so far up Trump's ass, you're treading in bile.

Whistling through your dentures again.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That’s exactly what should happen, actually he should’ve recused himself the first day, or thrown the case out of court.

See I was correct, no objectivity. The very thing you accuse the jury of....

Whistling through your dentures again.

Laughing, icant.....laughing......at you!

 

[icanhelp1]

See I was correct, no objectivity. The very thing you accuse the jury of....

Laughing, icant.....laughing......at you!

Why do you always lie or make shit up? I never accused the jury of lacking objectivity. What I wrote was that having lawyers on the jury they could instruct correctly the law and explain this convoluted scam of a trial, help jurors separate salacious and irrelevant testimony from the real relevant facts of the case.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yah, I agree. It will be interesting to see if the jury lets their hatred for Trump bias their decision. With two lawyers on the jury it will be interesting.

Here’s you saying what you just said you never said.

 

[icanhelp1]

Here’s you saying what you just said you never said.

Stop making shit up. “Interesting to see IF” is not accusing the jury of not being objective, but rather remains to be seen. Play your word semantic game with 74, he likes word games.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Stop making shit up. “Interesting to see IF” is not accusing the jury of not being objective, but rather remains to be seen. Play your word semantic game with 74, he likes word games.

Me directly quoting you isn’t making anything up. You said it, no amount of trying to backpedal will change that.

 

[dkovic77]

Stop making shit up. “Interesting to see IF” is not accusing the jury of not being objective, but rather remains to be seen. Play your word semantic game with 74, he likes word games.

Ahhhh IF.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump it’s ass when it hopped.

Stick with stuff you are supposedly good at, ding! Hash browns are done.

 

[dkovic77]

Why do you always lie or make shit up? I never accused the jury of lacking objectivity. What I wrote was that having lawyers on the jury they could instruct correctly the law and explain this convoluted scam of a trial, help jurors separate salacious and irrelevant testimony from the real relevant facts of the case.

For you, it’s not a lie— you just don’t know any different because of a clearly lacking education. But since yours is the party of no education, it makes sense.

Look out, don’t burn those hash browns!