Verdict reached in Trump hush money trial
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
You obviously haven't seen the ticket prices. And any event showing in Toronto bars is a multicultural mix.
You still don't get it. And until you do he will continue to confound you.
Really? Jury bias doesn't exist. Ask all those black people who were wrongly convicted because of jury bias
No it doesn't look good for the justice system when the people in charge of policing the election system fine and charge Clinton and don't charge Trump for the same crime yet Trump becomes a felon and Hillary doesn't. Does that make sense to you?
It does when Trump is guilty of committing crime after crime after crime. He was charged with misappropriating campaign funds to hide an affair to mislead voters. He was charged for taking documents and refusing to give them back. He is charged with trying to steal an election. I don't understand how any of his crimes relate to anyone else. Plus he was indicted by a grand jury and convicted by a jury of his peers, NOT BY BIDEN OR THE STATE.
I understand it all too well - Trump is the king of morons
Are you sure you are a lawyer? A state crime can be heard by the Supreme court if it involves Federal law. In this case one of the underlying crimes was he bro
It can be heard by the supreme court if there is federal or constitutional law involved . I'm pretty sure one of his lawyers will find a way to get it there
They don't relate to anyone one else. I'm talking about this specific one. where Trump and Hillary committed the same crime and she was charged by the FEC and he wasn't but he is charged with a felony and she isn't. In the same state no less
Its the best jury he could get in a district that voted 90% against him. Do you want to tell all those black people who were wrongly convicted that there isn't any jury bias.
Let's discuss this.
There is 2 centuries of stereotyping of Blacks as violent and lazy which affects jury perceptions.
Trump may not be liked in New York, but no one is stereotyping Trump as anything in particular. So your simile doesn't work.
Just out of curiosity - What was Trump's actual defence in the hush money trial?..... I don't think he had one, did he?
He just whined about how unfair it all was and that he was targeted as a political person. That's not a defence. That's a whiny-ass minge.
That's because they stack the bleachers close to Trump with Blacks and Latinos.
There are Trump-heads in the same sense that there used to be "Dead-heads" - people who followed the Grateful Dead around the country to be part of the carnival ethos. One of my female relatives married a dude whose parents obsess about Trump and follow him around. They continually buy Trump souvenirs and do whatever Trump tells them. They're unsophisticated. The dad's an ex traffic cop who's retired. And it's what they do to make them feel involved and busy.
A few protesters?
"Genocide Joe" has been adopted by more than just a few protesters. You can stop making excuses now.
CNN lawyer lays out his reasons why these charges was politically motivated: https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-l...ed-law-case-unjustified-mess?dicbo=v2-pYvzQSt
1. The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.
2. Bragg ran for office by "touting his Trump-hunting prowess" in the deeply blue county. Honig, who noted Bragg and Trump attorney Todd Blanche are both his friends and former colleagues, also said Bragg regularly made false claims about Trump on the campaign trail.
3. Honig declared the charges against Trump are "obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented." "In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever,"
4. The statute of limitations on a misdemeanor had long passed, so the DA needed to "inflate the charges" to a low-level felony.
5. The timing. Why did he bring these charges 9 months before the election instead of of in 2016 when the offence occurred??
Honig then concludes the case should be dubbed the "Frankenstein Case" because it was "cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."
1. The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.
2. Bragg ran for office by "touting his Trump-hunting prowess" in the deeply blue county. Honig, who noted Bragg and Trump attorney Todd Blanche are both his friends and former colleagues, also said Bragg regularly made false claims about Trump on the campaign trail.
3. Honig declared the charges against Trump are "obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented." "In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever,"
4. The statute of limitations on a misdemeanor had long passed, so the DA needed to "inflate the charges" to a low-level felony.
5. The timing. Why did he bring these charges 9 months before the election instead of of in 2016 when the offence occurred??
Honig then concludes the case should be dubbed the "Frankenstein Case" because it was "cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."
Actually there is. Justice is supposed to be blind and equal for all.
So when you prosecute someone because you dont like them for their politics while not prosecuting others, the DA and the judge in this case broke the oath they took before taking office
EDIT: oh and thank you for admitting this case was politically motivated
1) He was not charged with misappropriating campaign funds. He was charged with falsifying business records. Paying hush money is a legitimate business expense and happens quite frequently. Trump can argue he was protecting his brand. This conviction will be overturned.
2) Every POTUS takes documents. Trump wasn't refusing to give them back.
3) You can't steal something that you legitimately won.
