The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#6,851
#6,851
Vol8188 said:
Can you define “this”?
Click to expand...

Not sure I can says some of the things he said on the tapes, but basically there was an extended diatribe where he tells her that her "tits" are his. He clearly loves that word because he just keeps saying to her that they belong to him, that she has the most beautiful ones he's ever seen and thsat she belongs to him and he will never let her go.

In another one he talks about the small endowment of Jewish men. He also tells her that he gets aroused any time he thinks of her, even out in public.

That's the "this." If my daughter told me her employer said those things to her, we would be opening a can of whoop-ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#6,852
#6,852
GroverCleveland said:
Fair enough. No in-depth legal analysis. Have not read through the indictments because not sure I want to waste the time. But here is why I feel this will be the outcome:

1) some pretty smart lawyers who have read through everything say this is a nothing burger.
2) What little bit I know about this latest seems to boil down to Trump behaved like a cad, made atrocious statements, blah, blah, blah. Heck. I agree. But we should not imprison people because we don't like their political speech and I trust the courts to uphold that.
3) the anti-Trump crowd has gotten more irrational about him as every "we got him now" attempt has failed or been proven to have been made up and/or a product of their echo chambers. See nothing about this that seems any different. Just for example, take Adam Schiff. The man seems to be positively deranged about Trump and has been wrong virtually every single time he opens his mouth. Why would I have any confidence they "have him now?"
Click to expand...

Could you cite the names of those "pretty-smart" lawyers? I would love to see who they are and why they think that way. Almost everything I've read from legal analysis say this is anything but a nothing-burger. Even Dershowitz has been saying there is real jeopardy here.

If one of those lawyers is named Clark, Eastman, Giuliani, Wood, or Powell, you might want to reconsider.
 
#6,854
#6,854
WBO said:
Could you cite the names of those "pretty-smart" lawyers? I would love to see who they are and why they think that way. Almost everything I've read from legal analysis say this is anything but a nothing-burger. Even Dershowitz has been saying there is real jeopardy here.

If one of those lawyers is named Clark, Eastman, Giuliani, Wood, or Powell, you might want to reconsider.
Click to expand...
Dershowitz doesn't say that at all...the only one he give any real legal credence to and that it a minor credence is the documents charge...and that not prosecuting Hillary for the same set a similar precedent of not being illegal
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#6,855
#6,855
WBO said:
Could you cite the names of those "pretty-smart" lawyers? I would love to see who they are and why they think that way. Almost everything I've read from legal analysis say this is anything but a nothing-burger. Even Dershowitz has been saying there is real jeopardy here.

If one of those lawyers is named Clark, Eastman, Giuliani, Wood, or Powell, you might want to reconsider.
Click to expand...
No I will not provide names. Not interested in arguing which lawyer knows what, is a shill, or what have you, like you already started with here. If they're wrong, then so be it but as a group they have been accurate. I do respect Alan a ton and he is one i include in the group. But I have not heard him specifically talk about this latest.
 
#6,859
#6,859
whodeycin85 said:
Dershowitz doesn't say that at all...the only one he give any real legal credence to and that it a minor credence is the documents charge...and that not prosecuting Hillary for the same set a similar precedent of not being illegal
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, I'm pretty sure that not prosecuting somebody for something does not invalidate for all time the criminal law that the charges could have been based on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#6,860
#6,860
clarksvol00 said:
Right or wrong, I'm pretty sure that not prosecuting somebody for something does not invalidate for all time the criminal law that the charges could have been based on.
Click to expand...
Nope but it does set precedent....but that is out the window because he has been indicted...
 
#6,861
#6,861
GroverCleveland said:
Fair enough. No in-depth legal analysis. Have not read through the indictments because not sure I want to waste the time. But here is why I feel this will be the outcome:

1) some pretty smart lawyers who have read through everything say this is a nothing burger.
2) What little bit I know about this latest seems to boil down to Trump behaved like a cad, made atrocious statements, blah, blah, blah. Heck. I agree. But we should not imprison people because we don't like their political speech and I trust the courts to uphold that.
3) the anti-Trump crowd has gotten more irrational about him as every "we got him now" attempt has failed or been proven to have been made up and/or a product of their echo chambers. See nothing about this that seems any different. Just for example, take Adam Schiff. The man seems to be positively deranged about Trump and has been wrong virtually every single time he opens his mouth. Why would I have any confidence they "have him now?"
Click to expand...
1) I'm sure there are smart lawyers arguing both sides of this
2) I think it will be more about whether what he said was in furtherance of committing a crime
3) I think public opinion aspect is significantly less relevant once it gets into the court system.
 
#6,862
#6,862
whodeycin85 said:
Dershowitz doesn't say that at all...the only one he give any real legal credence to and that it a minor credence is the documents charge...and that not prosecuting Hillary for the same set a similar precedent of not being illegal
Click to expand...

Contestant: "I'll take 'Lawyers Who Think the Indictments are BS' for $1000, ALEX."

Alex: "This Harvard Law Professor says the the latest Indictments are BS."

Contestant: "Who is Alan Dershowitz? "

DING! DING! DING! DING!
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#6,863
#6,863
Vol8188 said:
You should check your source on that one again. Dershowitz wasn’t saying the charges were legit.
Click to expand...

Better check the date on that one, or else Dershowitz has started bouncing around on his positions trying to get back on the A list for parties on Martha's Vineyard. Have you noted that Dershowitz declined to be part of Trump's defense team on the most recent charges. He did the impeachment but won't do the criminal.
 
#6,864
#6,864
GroverCleveland said:
No I will not provide names. Not interested in arguing which lawyer knows what, is a shill, or what have you, like you already started with here. If they're wrong, then so be it but as a group they have been accurate. I do respect Alan a ton and he is one i include in the group. But I have not heard him specifically talk about this latest.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you're full of crap and you were just making up your references. Got it.
 
#6,865
#6,865
WBO said:
Better check the date on that one, or else Dershowitz has started bouncing around on his positions trying to get back on the A list for parties on Martha's Vineyard. Have you noted that Dershowitz declined to be part of Trump's defense team on the most recent charges. He did the impeachment but won't do the criminal.
Click to expand...
The article I posted is from Aug 2 and 3...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#6,866
#6,866
WBO said:
Better check the date on that one, or else Dershowitz has started bouncing around on his positions trying to get back on the A list for parties on Martha's Vineyard. Have you noted that Dershowitz declined to be part of Trump's defense team on the most recent charges. He did the impeachment but won't do the criminal.
Click to expand...

You’re all over the place here. You made a claim. I’m telling you that your claim is false. Do you have a source you can share where he says the thing you’re saying he said?
 
#6,867
#6,867
clarksvol00 said:
1) I'm sure there are smart lawyers arguing both sides of this
2) I think it will be more about whether what he said was in furtherance of committing a crime
3) I think public opinion aspect is significantly less relevant once it gets into the court system.
Click to expand...
On number 3, could not agree more! But I think you missed my point on it.

It was public opinion of the left that pumped these AGs to start these circuses. And the courts typically care less about public opinion (although I do think CJ John Roberts listens occasionally). So once in the court system, the noise will be relegated to standing behind the Bill of Rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#6,870
#6,870
Vol8188 said:
You’re all over the place here. You made a claim. I’m telling you that your claim is false. Do you have a source you can share where he says the thing you’re saying he said?
Click to expand...
He is always all over the place. Get ready to be told you're full of crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#6,871
#6,871
Fulton County now putting up barriers and closing roads around the courthouse in preperation for next weeks indictments against Trump.
 
#6,873
#6,873
Trump indictment: Three things we learned about events in Georgia

“When our research and campaign legal team can’t back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we’re 0-32 on our [court] cases,” the advisor wrote. “I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy s--- beamed down from the mothership.”
 
#6,874
#6,874
luthervol said:
Fulton County now putting up barriers and closing roads around the courthouse in preperation for next weeks indictments against Trump.
Click to expand...
They started that days ago I thought. Saw a news story on it or maybe it was talking about planning for the circus parade.
 
#6,875
#6,875
luthervol said:
Trump indictment: Three things we learned about events in Georgia

“When our research and campaign legal team can’t back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we’re 0-32 on our [court] cases,” the advisor wrote. “I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy s--- beamed down from the mothership.”
Click to expand...

Believing conspiracy theories is not a crime
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top