Last edited:
Donald Trump - GUILTY!
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
There seems to be a couple of redeeming qualities about her.
Obvious "qualities" aside..Is it just me or does she kinda sound like Ivanka? Kinda funny.
Close your mouth and stop panting and drooling
@rimaldo your transcipt has been leakedMore Giuliani transcripts...
DO IT! Custody pending trial should be the bare minimum for this loudmouth.
Yet he'll still be the president after the next election
I just can't see any way this helps the odds of a Trump win next year. There's the theory that this will energise voters, keep them intersted in politics - but - this won't be his rallies, this will be Trump sitting like the naughty kid in high school, looking old and beaten, quietly pleading the fifth every few minutes. He's got at least 3 trials next year, at the same time he's supposed to be campaigning.
What I find most shocking is that Fox was unable to turn on him. It was so clear last year that Murdoch had given the order that the moron masses needed manipulating towards a less volatile idiot candidate, but even Fox news couldn't sway the base. So now they're back in, because simply they have to be.
It'll probably come down to dem turnout, and the young vote showing up to stop this idiocy. But if their choice is an even older guy? Smart ones will notice that older guy has passed more green legislation than any president in history, but you'd hardly know that from the 'coverage' that we get.
What I find most shocking is that Fox was unable to turn on him. It was so clear last year that Murdoch had given the order that the moron masses needed manipulating towards a less volatile idiot candidate, but even Fox news couldn't sway the base. So now they're back in, because simply they have to be.
It'll probably come down to dem turnout, and the young vote showing up to stop this idiocy. But if their choice is an even older guy? Smart ones will notice that older guy has passed more green legislation than any president in history, but you'd hardly know that from the 'coverage' that we get.
Biden? Yep, absolutely will.
Why would Fox turn on him?
He's the one that makes them money, which is the be-all-end-all as far as Murdoch is concerned, he told us that when asked about the My Pillow guy
Nah, not at all. Murdoch makes money by dictating or swaying elections and forcing narratives and agendas.
Trump was a means to an end for Murdoch and he will drop him or pick him up whenever he sees fit.
He still is a means to an end, that's why they haven't turned on him, Trump will get dropped once the SC denies all his appeals about quashing the jail sentences he'll be getting
They'd initially pivoted to De Sanctis but he was rubbish.
Looking at the GOP, I say they are exactly in the same kind of very rotten patch in which the Conservative Party of Canada was during the 1963-1979 Liberal domination under Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. When one party's narrative can't find an appeal for a very long time, that is what happens. Simple as that.
Just send the FBI'S HRT unit in and drag the fat feck out with steel handcuffs already.
She has decent qualifications
We are such a banana republic. I hope Biden is held accountable for this pile of shite.
And feck Trump too - America deserves better than these geriatric loonies
And feck Trump too - America deserves better than these geriatric loonies
Do tell, which pile of shit?
The latest indictment, clearly silly.
1. the indictment was made by a grand jury of normal citizens.
2. The grand jury was empaneled by a special counsel, independent of DOJ oversight.
3. The DOJ, via the AG, appointed the special counsel, independent of the White House.
so, for your argument to hold any water you would need to claim the Biden has omnipotent powers to influence secret members of a grand jury while sidestepping all of the layers of independence between them.
Of course none of that addresses the fact that the indictment is rock solid and will finally address the ringleaders of an attempt to overturn an election. Or are you arguing that Trump and Co. did nothing if the sort?
Why is Biden in any way responsible for Trump's criminal behaviour?
The documents case is legally solid, although others like Berger, Petraeus, and Clinton violated classified requirements without prosecution. Sandy Berger - Clinton's National Security Advisor - stuffed his pants with classified documents from one of those clean rooms and got away with the slap on the wrist. Prosecuting Trump feels challenging, given past leniency for similar cases.
Regarding January 6th, Trump's actions were disgraceful and outrageous, but proving criminal conduct requires concrete evidence. You actually have to prove that somebody engaged in criminal behavior. And the issue here with this January 6 case is that it relies on novel legal theories. There's actually a really good article in the New York Times of all places explaining this. When you have the New York Times saying that the case is weak, I think it's really indicative. David Leonhardt from the New York Times says:
Shocking as it was, Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6 did not violate any laws in obvious ways. He never directly told those at the Jan. 6 rally to attack Congress. During his speech that day, he even said he knew the protesters would behave “peacefully and patriotically.” It was part of a longstanding Trump pattern, in which — as my colleague Maggie Haberman puts it — “he is often both all over the place and yet somewhat careful not to cross certain lines.” As for Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election result, no federal law specifically bars politicians from attempting to do so.Without such a law, Smith has relied on a novel approach. He has charged Trump with committing criminal fraud and violating conspiracy laws that were not written to prevent the overturning of an election result.
And then he says that the key part of these laws, they revolve around a person's intent and tend to score to the notion of fraud, only if someone is knowingly trying to deceive others can he be committing a fraud. And he says that's why the case seems likely to revolve around Trump's state of mind. So the problem with this is they have to not only prove that what Trump did in the wake of the election was indefensible and outrageous etc, but they have to prove that Trump knew that he lost the election and knowingly perpetrated the fraud. And I don't think you'll be able to ever prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. In his mind, Trump won – and he had all his bootlickers like Giuliani, Sidney Powell, the Pillow guy telling him he won and he should sue – so it’ll be tough for this prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
While I acknowledge Trump's actions as outrageous, the purpose of criminal law extends beyond expressing disapproval. Conviction requires a clear and straightforward presentation of evidence without resorting to unconventional legal interpretations. The question of why Trump isn't charged with incitement remains intriguing, especially considering the media's portrayal over the last two and a half years. The Department of Justice's assessment under Merrick Garland concluded that they couldn't secure a winnable case, leading to the appointment of Jack Smith as a special counsel to explore alternative prosecution routes.
What you have here instead is prosecutors contorting a civil rights law to indict Trump under the untested legal theory of committing "fraud against the American people." This creative approach raises concerns about potential abuse, reminiscent of the "show me the man, I'll show you the crime" mentality seen in Stalin's Russia.
One can't help but wonder about the timing of these developments. Isn't it rather intriguing that these charges are surfacing years after the initial incident, precisely as we approach the Republican primary season? While those individuals who entered the US Capitol were swiftly charged with crimes a couple of years back, it's quite perplexing that this cascade of legal actions is descending upon Trump at this very moment. One might argue that this sequence of events appears to disrupt an ongoing political process. Ideally, if there were criminal charges to be brought forth, one would have expected them to be filed a couple of years ago, allowing ample time for the legal proceedings to unfold well before another political cycle emerged. Yet, with the current scenario unfolding amid the midst of a political cycle, it certainly induces a sense of unease for me. The specter of three letter agencies potentially influencing the political landscape adds an unsettling layer to the narrative.
Regarding January 6th, Trump's actions were disgraceful and outrageous, but proving criminal conduct requires concrete evidence. You actually have to prove that somebody engaged in criminal behavior. And the issue here with this January 6 case is that it relies on novel legal theories. There's actually a really good article in the New York Times of all places explaining this. When you have the New York Times saying that the case is weak, I think it's really indicative. David Leonhardt from the New York Times says:
Shocking as it was, Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6 did not violate any laws in obvious ways. He never directly told those at the Jan. 6 rally to attack Congress. During his speech that day, he even said he knew the protesters would behave “peacefully and patriotically.” It was part of a longstanding Trump pattern, in which — as my colleague Maggie Haberman puts it — “he is often both all over the place and yet somewhat careful not to cross certain lines.” As for Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election result, no federal law specifically bars politicians from attempting to do so.Without such a law, Smith has relied on a novel approach. He has charged Trump with committing criminal fraud and violating conspiracy laws that were not written to prevent the overturning of an election result.
And then he says that the key part of these laws, they revolve around a person's intent and tend to score to the notion of fraud, only if someone is knowingly trying to deceive others can he be committing a fraud. And he says that's why the case seems likely to revolve around Trump's state of mind. So the problem with this is they have to not only prove that what Trump did in the wake of the election was indefensible and outrageous etc, but they have to prove that Trump knew that he lost the election and knowingly perpetrated the fraud. And I don't think you'll be able to ever prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. In his mind, Trump won – and he had all his bootlickers like Giuliani, Sidney Powell, the Pillow guy telling him he won and he should sue – so it’ll be tough for this prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
While I acknowledge Trump's actions as outrageous, the purpose of criminal law extends beyond expressing disapproval. Conviction requires a clear and straightforward presentation of evidence without resorting to unconventional legal interpretations. The question of why Trump isn't charged with incitement remains intriguing, especially considering the media's portrayal over the last two and a half years. The Department of Justice's assessment under Merrick Garland concluded that they couldn't secure a winnable case, leading to the appointment of Jack Smith as a special counsel to explore alternative prosecution routes.
What you have here instead is prosecutors contorting a civil rights law to indict Trump under the untested legal theory of committing "fraud against the American people." This creative approach raises concerns about potential abuse, reminiscent of the "show me the man, I'll show you the crime" mentality seen in Stalin's Russia.
One can't help but wonder about the timing of these developments. Isn't it rather intriguing that these charges are surfacing years after the initial incident, precisely as we approach the Republican primary season? While those individuals who entered the US Capitol were swiftly charged with crimes a couple of years back, it's quite perplexing that this cascade of legal actions is descending upon Trump at this very moment. One might argue that this sequence of events appears to disrupt an ongoing political process. Ideally, if there were criminal charges to be brought forth, one would have expected them to be filed a couple of years ago, allowing ample time for the legal proceedings to unfold well before another political cycle emerged. Yet, with the current scenario unfolding amid the midst of a political cycle, it certainly induces a sense of unease for me. The specter of three letter agencies potentially influencing the political landscape adds an unsettling layer to the narrative.
I fixed your question (in this country, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty and all that) and I'm answering that Jack Smith works for Merrick Garland, who works for Joe Biden.
And this president's DOJ is seeking to prosecute his main political opponent, despite his DOJ couldn't win the case in the first place
Legally innocent until proven innocent isn't the same as guilt as a puppy by a pile of steaming poo in full view of a cct camera.
And it has already been pointed out the grand jury were independent and each step between them and the white house are also independent.
If anything it is amazing he has so few charges against him in general. Probably a case of going for undebatable slam dunk charges to tne usual lawywrly throwing of shit against a wall, seeing if anything sticks and then using the confusion to distract a jury into aquiting. And surely there have to be more on the way? Contempt of court, intimidating witnesses (I'm coming for you), election interference or corruption or whatever in Georgia, not to mention taking $50 mill from a PAC for legal fees which seems to not be legal either.
I'm hoping this scumbag will end up in prison with #scottyfromarketing (Robodebt) and Bojo (surely there must he something?) Following him ASAP.
Last edited:
It's great that you felt easy about previous scenarios.
It’d be difficult for you to write something in the future more incorrect if you needed to than this post.
Last edited:
You literally outed your post as ignorant with your first sentence.
I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time but:
1) The independence of the process to lead to an indictment had already been explained - which you continue to ignore.
2) A difficult to prove case or a novel interpretation of a law doesn’t make it wrong or legal gymnastics. Has it occurred to you it might just be that it’s the first time a US president has behaved in such a way, hence the first time such a scenario for such a type of indictment has occurred? Imagine thinking the first time something has happened makes it dubious. Humans should still live in caves.
3) You’ve no idea what the evidence is. Imagine if there’s a video or recording of documents which show that these guys have themselves admitted they know it’s lost but they still go an pressure others to change results or spout the lies they did in the media. Would that not be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?
4) Stalin’s Russia
- I guess all the indictments are just bullshit. Right. Someone who has demonstrably broken the law, in multiple ways. Sounds much more like you trying to fit a narrative to your theory. 5) Clearly the case is far more complex than charging the people who actually walked into the capitol - so this is just a ridiculous comparison.
Dying on the hill that Donald fecking Trump is being wrongfully prosecuted is probably the most stupid political take I've ever read on the Caf, and just a few days ago we had a user post that Nigel Farage was completely correct on all counts (almost verbatim). Donald fecking Trump no less, the worst person and the most dangerous personality in the world for the last decade at the very least.
Do law schools ever ask for their diplomas back?
This… can’t possibly be serious.
Hang on, is the highlighted bit supposed to be bad, or is it now wrong to want to bring a career criminal to justice?
What propels the MAGA cult is magical thinking. They couldn’t believe Biden got 7 million more votes than Trump, so they concoct an alternate reality where tens of thousands of people - including elected Republicans - conspire to deny him the victory. They believe if they wish/pray hard enough it will come true. The problem for them is that justice doesn’t work this way. The legal system (flawed though it may be) is about presenting evidence and cogent arguments, not presenting someone’s dream board and hoping it works.
There is an article in today’s Washington Post profiling two Georgia voters, one Democrat, one Republican, and the Republican literally did not care what was in the indictment, didn’t read the indictment, and sought out opinions from non-journalists in order to confirm his gut feelings.
There is an article in today’s Washington Post profiling two Georgia voters, one Democrat, one Republican, and the Republican literally did not care what was in the indictment, didn’t read the indictment, and sought out opinions from non-journalists in order to confirm his gut feelings.