The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#2,601
#2,601
LouderVol said:
anyone but Trump, and almost anywhere but NYC and I would agree.

even some expert on NPR was coming out and saying Trump has a really good case to get any case tried somewhere outside of the city. as he is pretty universally hated there.
Click to expand...

You mean outside Manhattan? I’m not sure if the change of venue would apply to the borough within NYC or to the entire state of NY.
 
#2,602
#2,602
LouderVol said:
again, you don't have to prove innocence. You just have to find reasonable doubt (because the default position is innocence) in the prosecutions charge/case, which doesn't not inherently mean you have to be innocent to "win" a defense case.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows that.
 
#2,603
#2,603
AM64 said:
The defense proves the prosecution is wrong or not credible. Not necessarily the same thing. If it came down to showing the defendant was somewhere else when a crime occurred, then the defense proved the prosecution had the facts wrong, and I suppose you could claim that also proved the person was innocent because he/she wasn't there. On the other hand the defense might simply show the prosecution failed to factually prove the defendant was there - that the prosecution simply couldn't correlate the necessary facts - that doesn't really prove innocence - simply shows the DA didn't have proof of guilt.
Click to expand...
Everyone understands that.
 
#2,604
#2,604
Franklin Pierce said:
Even the Washington Post Admits the Case Against Trump Is Probably BS

The Post’s editorial board published an op-ed titled “The Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president,” in which the authors cast doubt on the chances that Bragg will be able to carry out a successful prosecution of the former president based on the Stormy Daniels matter. They wrote:
​
Donald Trump deserves the legal scrutiny he’s getting — which has come from many corners on many counts. Yet of the long list of alleged violations, the likely charges on which a grand jury in New York state voted to indict him are perhaps the least compelling. There’s cause for concern, and caution, ahead.​
​
Even the Washington Post Admits the Case Against Trump Is Probably BS
Click to expand...
Does anyone think that the Daniels payoff is only a small part of this indictment? I have to agree if that's all there is the prosecutors should have walked away.
 
#2,605
#2,605
And we have this..........

Dominion defamation case against Fox News will go to trial next month, judge rules
 
#2,606
#2,606
Septic said:
Again, a grand jury indited him not Bragg. Bragg simply laid out the evidence of violation(s) of the law.

Don't we want politicians to be held accountable when the evidence presents itself and a jury sees merit?

Now trump will get what he wants - a platform to complain about how unfair life is while begging for donations.

I don't get it, you folks bitch about the politicians getting away with crimes (see hillary clinton and the "lock her up" screeches") and then fall all over yourselves clutching your pearls when your flavor actually gets held accountable.
Click to expand...

First of all Septic Tank
1 The grand jury would have never voted if Bragg hadn’t presented them the case, which he had previously declined twice to do until it got politically expedient. Just like he refused to drop the charges against the bodega worker.

2nd- IDK where you think you get off referring to me “as you folks“ You don’t know jack about me. I certainly have no love for Trump which can be divined from about 200 posts I’ve made in this forum. I take zero pleasure in Trump being indicted as a political stunt. I take zero pleasure in the idea of Trump using the spectacle of the trial to distract from all of the other sins he’s committed and gin up his base. I take zero pleasure in the media using this as a distraction from about 8 other things, most especially the IRS showing up at a Congressional witnesses home on the day of his testimony.

Anything else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#2,608
#2,608
VolinMichigan said:
You mean outside Manhattan? I’m not sure if the change of venue would apply to the borough within NYC or to the entire state of NY.
Click to expand...
I don't know know either. I would figure outside of NYC would be more likely to be neutral without leaving the jurisdiction.
 
#2,609
#2,609
Hunerwadel said:
Does anyone think that the Daniels payoff is only a small part of this indictment? I have to agree if that's all there is the prosecutors should have walked away.
Click to expand...
This is just opening the door for the Biden indictment. If you think that the republicans are going to just forget about this when they are in the whitehouse again, you better look out. I see a payback coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,611
#2,611
VolStrom said:
This is just opening the door for the Biden indictment. If you think that the republicans are going to just forget about this when they are in the whitehouse again, you better look out. I see a payback coming.
Click to expand...

Why wait? Many Dems believed a sitting President could be indicted when Trump was President..we could have DAs all over the nation file suites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red butler and AM64
#2,612
#2,612
evillawyer said:
Cucksantis. I love it. Donny's probably mad it's better than his "DeSanctimonious."

Click to expand...

Cheerlead for this all you want but anyone who isn't a partisan wingnut knows this isn't about upholding the law. For those complaining about Jan 6th and the precident that set for our politics this is a bad look. Intellectual honesty be damned.

This coming from someone who doesn't care what happens to Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, davethevol, AM64 and 1 other person
#2,613
#2,613
luthervol said:
Everyone understands that.
Click to expand...

Good, and it doesn't mean you have to prove innocence - just simply that the prosecutor hasn't been able to prove guilt. BTW, I think when the prosecution can't prove the case that the state should bear the total cost of the trial - particularly all the defendant's costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeburst, StarRaider and 1 other person
#2,615
#2,615
VolinMichigan said:
Ok? I agree that politicians aren’t above the law. I’ve never insisted otherwise. Why is it so hard to admit that if Trump did something illegal, he should be held accountable? I’m not even assigning guilt. He’ll get his day in court. Being an ex-president shouldn’t be a “get out of jail free” card. If the alleged crimes of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Fauci et al are so apparent and obvious, why has nobody moved to indict them? There have been several investigations of Hillary, all led by republicans that would love nothing more than to indict her, but they didn’t? Why?
Click to expand...
Presidents are absolutely above the law. Every President since and including Reagan was an unconvicted felon. We are ruled by a criminal kleptocracy. The law is for you, not them.
 
#2,624
#2,624
volfanhill said:
100%
Click to expand...

The key witness against him was allowed to testify anonymously, I've never heard of that being allowed.

A key witness for the prosecution — a notorious troll with the screen name “Microchip” — was allowed to testify anonymously. He said the fake vote-by-text ads were designed to “defraud voters of their right to vote,” and described Mackey as a leader in the group chats, someone respected for his large following and his strategic use of memes.
Click to expand...

Guilty verdict for pro-Trump troll who tried to trick voters out of casting Hillary Clinton ballots in 2016
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top