Trump: 34 felony counts, no misdeamors

[Into the Night]

its good you are lowering your expectations......then, when you get disappointed, you won't have as far to fall....

Too late. floridafan fell on his face long ago. He never recovered.

 

[Into the Night]

34 felonies,I guess the Grand Jury that actually SAW the evidence disagrees with you!

What 34 felonies??
NONE were listed in the indictment.
NONE were listed in the facts and specifications.

 

[Into the Night]

The grand jury that saw the evidence and chose to indict disagree with you! But you go ahead and keep pretending Trump is innocent and your Messiah!View attachment 24802

What evidence?
The indictment doesn't even contain a felony charge.

 

[Into the Night]

No evidence?? Why would the grand jury indict 34 times because some jerkoff on the internet who's to dumb to spell "liberal", claims there's no evidence? Even though the grand jury SAW the evidence!
It's starting to look like you're just like Trump a lying bullshiter

What evidence? The indictment contains no felony charges.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So you agree you thought he would be indicted?

I kind of figured it was coming. Given that the radical Left--in this case, Bragg--ignores reality, the law, and anything else that stands in the way of getting what they want, I could see Bragg being stupid enough to push this through.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

34 felonies,I guess the Grand Jury that actually SAW the evidence disagrees with you!

This is a variant of the irrelevant Appeal to popularity in the form of quantity. The indictment is 34 of the same charge where each entry is supposedly a separate crime and deserves a separate charge. I suspect two things are true of the grand jury Bragg used:

1. That it was composed in majority or entirely of persons predisposed to getting Trump indicted.

2. That it wasn't shown all the evidence, but rather cherry-picked evidence that supported a predetermined--by Bragg--desired outcome.

 

[Mason Michaels]

This is a variant of the irrelevant Appeal to popularity in the form of quantity. The indictment is 34 of the same charge where each entry is supposedly a separate crime and deserves a separate charge. I suspect two things are true of the grand jury Bragg used:

1. That it was composed in majority or entirely of persons predisposed to getting Trump indicted.

2. That it wasn't shown all the evidence, but rather cherry-picked evidence that supported a predetermined--by Bragg--desired outcome.

Grand Juries are secret! You have no idea what the grand jury saw as evidence to chose to indict Trump of
34 felonies.

 

[BartenderElite]

This is a variant of the irrelevant Appeal to popularity in the form of quantity. The indictment is 34 of the same charge where each entry is supposedly a separate crime and deserves a separate charge. I suspect two things are true of the grand jury Bragg used:

1. That it was composed in majority or entirely of persons predisposed to getting Trump indicted.

2. That it wasn't shown all the evidence, but rather cherry-picked evidence that supported a predetermined--by Bragg--desired outcome.

That's wild speculation. Prosecutors generally HAVE to present credible evidence on both sides if they have it. And they have to make the case that an actual crime was committed.

It would be beyond stupid for a prosecutor to try to cherrypick if he felt it couldn't hold up in court, once the defense can present a case.

Trump is about to be indicted again, btw.

 

[floridafan]

Nah. They will probably be just as pointless.

Just how can it be pointless, when you know none of the evidence against him?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Grand Juries are secret! You have no idea what the grand jury saw as evidence to chose to indict Trump of
34 felonies.

Doesn't change I can make assumptions, 'educated' guesses, etc., on that which I did.

 

[Kamala Trump]

That's wild speculation. Prosecutors generally HAVE to present credible evidence on both sides if they have it. And they have to make the case that an actual crime was committed.

It would be beyond stupid for a prosecutor to try to cherrypick if he felt it couldn't hold up in court, once the defense can present a case.

Trump is about to be indicted again, btw.

do you see how your logic is circular?

the 'no true scotsman' argument it's called.

look it up, dum dum.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's wild speculation. Prosecutors generally HAVE to present credible evidence on both sides if they have it. And they have to make the case that an actual crime was committed.

It would be beyond stupid for a prosecutor to try to cherrypick if he felt it couldn't hold up in court, once the defense can present a case.

Trump is about to be indicted again, btw.

"Wild" no. Speculation, yes. Prosecutors choose grand juries. Prosecutors choose what cases and evidence to present to them. They don't have to present both sides. That comes if the case goes to charges, then trial where discovery is made.

A sane and reasonable prosecutor picks cases that are highly winnable, and never presents ones that have poor chances in a trial. A reasonable and sane prosecutor also doesn't stack charges. Bragg did none of that. Bragg, can't specify what crime(s) Trump committed then tried to cover up. Bragg stacked 34 of the exact same charge onto Trump making each line item he claims was fraudulent a separate crime. If Trump's lawyers have half a brain, they'll ask the court to combine all 34 into one charge right off arguing it is one case where multiple entries were made, not 34 different cases like Bragg is making out.

 

[Hawkeye10]

This is a great place to remember that the globalists mission is to rub out nations sovereignty ...in the new world order nations will control only the most trivial matters.

 

[ExpressLane]

If one charge fails, the other 33 are in serious jeopardy of failing.

It is a house of cards.

 

[BartenderElite]

do you see how your logic is circular?

the 'no true scotsman' argument it's called.

look it up, dum dum.

I'll check it out, even though you called me a bad name.

 

[ExpressLane]

I kind of figured it was coming. Given that the radical Left--in this case, Bragg--ignores reality, the law, and anything else that stands in the way of getting what they want, I could see Bragg being stupid enough to push this through.

Looks like Braggs brains did not get him into Harvard.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Doesn't change I can make assumptions, 'educated' guesses, etc., on that which I did.

When you assume !etc!

 

[Into the Night]

I kind of figured it was coming. Given that the radical Left--in this case, Bragg--ignores reality, the law, and anything else that stands in the way of getting what they want, I could see Bragg being stupid enough to push this through.

He certainly is stupid enough. He's exposing himself to a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

 

[Into the Night]

This is a variant of the irrelevant Appeal to popularity in the form of quantity. The indictment is 34 of the same charge where each entry is supposedly a separate crime and deserves a separate charge. I suspect two things are true of the grand jury Bragg used:

1. That it was composed in majority or entirely of persons predisposed to getting Trump indicted.

2. That it wasn't shown all the evidence, but rather cherry-picked evidence that supported a predetermined--by Bragg--desired outcome.

I read the indictment. Didn't see any felony charge in there anywhere. I read the facts and specifications. Didn't see anything there, either.

 

[Into the Night]

Grand Juries are secret! You have no idea what the grand jury saw as evidence to chose to indict Trump of
34 felonies.

There are no felonies listed on the indictment.