This Trump Indictment Shouldn’t Stand

Trump is the world's worst Karen. He cries and bleats about everything he does not like. he has been crying like a child and bitching like an old hag his whole life. Don't rightys get tired of his crying? At every rally, he goes full Festivus and lists his grievances. Then he plays 'poor poor pitiful me'. I'm such a good person, except for rapes, grabbing women by the pussy, cheating lawyers and contractors, committing crimes to overthrow a fair and honest election, and criming away as a life style. they are unfairly picking on me.
Trump is obvious and demented. Yet you stupid rightye\s want him back in the office. Trump is a mental midget and emotionally stunted. the problem is you guys and your self-delusion.
 
Concart said:
You can always tell when TD is given brief access to a computer. They should really put a few more limits on his screen time. Maybe he can spend more time eating crayons and play doh.
Click to expand...

Just another one of “copy and paste’s” pseudonymous, he uses it to throw shit out there and then check back latter rebutting with the “you moron,” “you idiot,” adolescent bullshit, then he moves on to another identity

Actually, beginning to believe that the individual running the site uses several different pseudonyms from both directions, though largely leaning right, just to keep this forum alive. It is the reason large part of the threads here start with outrageous topic posts based on shit sources and quickly evolve into the personal insults
 
Concart said:
You can always tell when TD is given brief access to a computer. They should really put a few more limits on his screen time. Maybe he can spend more time eating crayons and play doh.
Click to expand...

We can always tell when you're on a thread doing nothing but crying, lying and trolling. Run along little man. You're not serious.
 
archives said:
Ah pal, is not Lowery the chief editor of the National Review? And was not the opinion piece put out by the editors of the National Review?

Duh
Click to expand...

You sad caricature of ignorance and stupidity, only a brain dead hack like you spends this much wasteful bandwidth whining about the editors of a factual opinion piece.

Do you have an argument or something to refute the facts? Or just come here to whine and look like an ignorant uneducated dummy on steroids?

archives said:
You don’t even know anything about the sources you quote let alone what they say
Click to expand...

The only one here displaying their glaring ignorance is you halfwit. :palm:
 
archives said:
There are millions of law professors, and those two make their money being media whores than actual professors, and as I said, Dershowitz is anything anyone wants to pay him to be, why he has sunk to the lower levels of infotainment
Click to expand...

Once again, a post lacking in anything coherent, factual or intelligent.

archives said:
And you didn’t “debate” your own post, as I said, actually Lowery authored, Smith has to prove Trump “knew his badgering and lobbying had no factual or legal merit,” which given the testimony of Pence and others close to Trump, is doable, to which you offered zero rebuttal
Click to expand...

Another laughable pile of uneducated bile. I don't think you can post without looking stupid and lying.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump is the world's worst Karen. He cries and bleats about everything he does not like. he has been crying like a child and bitching like an old hag his whole life. Don't rightys get tired of his crying? At every rally, he goes full Festivus and lists his grievances. Then he plays 'poor poor pitiful me'. I'm such a good person, except for rapes, grabbing women by the pussy, cheating lawyers and contractors, committing crimes to overthrow a fair and honest election, and criming away as a life style. they are unfairly picking on me.
Trump is obvious and demented. Yet you stupid rightye\s want him back in the office. Trump is a mental midget and emotionally stunted. the problem is you guys and your self-delusion.
Click to expand...

Translation of this brain dead thread trolling hack: TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP, and.....

blah-blah-seinfeld.gif
 
archives said:
Just another one of “copy and paste’s” pseudonymous, he uses it to throw shit out there and then check back latter rebutting with the “you moron,” “you idiot,” adolescent bullshit, then he moves on to another identity
Click to expand...

You sad, pathetic, ignorant little boor. It's the same boring repetition with you. But alas, avoiding intelligent debate and facts seems to be your forte'.

archives said:
Actually, beginning to believe that the individual running the site uses several different pseudonyms from both directions, though largely leaning right, just to keep this forum alive. It is the reason large part of the threads here start with outrageous topic posts based on shit sources and quickly evolve into the personal insults
Click to expand...

You really are too stupid for words. :laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
In my view, NONE of the Trump indictments have legal standing. But that is now for our courts and eventually, Supreme Court to decide.

Here, it is not even clear that Smith has alleged anything that the law forbids. The indictment relates in detail Trump’s deceptions, but that doesn’t mean they constitute criminal fraud. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable — and, again, impeachable — but it’s not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged. Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump hadn’t actually convinced himself that the election was stolen from him (good luck with that), hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.

As for obstruction, Americans, presidents included, have a right to attempt to influence Congress, even based on dubious or imagined evidence. To establish obstruction, Smith must prove that Trump’s efforts at persuasion were corrupt — again, in the sense that he knew his badgering and lobbying had no factual or legal merit. The concept of corruption is meant to reach clearly criminal conduct, such as evidence manipulation or witness tampering. It has never been understood to reach wrong-headed legal theories. To apply it that way, as Smith proposes, would chill not only political speech, but the constitutional right of a defendant to mount a legal defense.

Finally, Smith is charging Trump with a civil-rights violation, on the theory that he sought to counteract the votes of Americans in contested states and based on a post–Civil War statute designed to punish violent intimidation and forcible attacks against blacks attempting to exercise their right to vote. What Trump did, though reprehensible, bears no relation to what the statute covers.

In his press conference announcing the charges, Smith — for good reason — did not dwell on his questionable charges. He instead emphasized the Capitol riot. Anyone witnessing his remarks would have believed that Trump had incited a forcible attack on the Capitol. Of course, Smith has not charged him with any such thing because he doesn’t have the evidence to tie him criminally to the riot. The prosecutor was making a political statement, clearly aimed at swaying the jury pool in blue Washington, D.C., where the Justice Department brags daily about having charged more than a thousand rioters.

There is a reason Smith does not have a solid statutory crime to rely on. To criminalize the conduct for which he seeks to convict Trump, Congress would have to write sweeping laws that could easily be wielded by one party against another to punish objectionable political conduct. That would undermine both electoral politics and the rule of law.

This indictment shouldn’t stand.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/this-trump-indictment-shouldnt-stand/
Click to expand...

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?206051-So-let%92s-take-this-one-at-a-time
 
Truth Detector said:
In my view, NONE of the Trump indictments have legal standing. But that is now for our courts and eventually, Supreme Court to decide.

Here, it is not even clear that Smith has alleged anything that the law forbids. The indictment relates in detail Trump’s deceptions, but that doesn’t mean they constitute criminal fraud. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just a few weeks ago, fraud in federal criminal law is a scheme to swindle victims out of money or tangible property. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable — and, again, impeachable — but it’s not criminal fraud, although that is what Smith has charged. Indeed, assuming a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump hadn’t actually convinced himself that the election was stolen from him (good luck with that), hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.

As for obstruction, Americans, presidents included, have a right to attempt to influence Congress, even based on dubious or imagined evidence. To establish obstruction, Smith must prove that Trump’s efforts at persuasion were corrupt — again, in the sense that he knew his badgering and lobbying had no factual or legal merit. The concept of corruption is meant to reach clearly criminal conduct, such as evidence manipulation or witness tampering. It has never been understood to reach wrong-headed legal theories. To apply it that way, as Smith proposes, would chill not only political speech, but the constitutional right of a defendant to mount a legal defense.

Finally, Smith is charging Trump with a civil-rights violation, on the theory that he sought to counteract the votes of Americans in contested states and based on a post–Civil War statute designed to punish violent intimidation and forcible attacks against blacks attempting to exercise their right to vote. What Trump did, though reprehensible, bears no relation to what the statute covers.

In his press conference announcing the charges, Smith — for good reason — did not dwell on his questionable charges. He instead emphasized the Capitol riot. Anyone witnessing his remarks would have believed that Trump had incited a forcible attack on the Capitol. Of course, Smith has not charged him with any such thing because he doesn’t have the evidence to tie him criminally to the riot. The prosecutor was making a political statement, clearly aimed at swaying the jury pool in blue Washington, D.C., where the Justice Department brags daily about having charged more than a thousand rioters.

There is a reason Smith does not have a solid statutory crime to rely on. To criminalize the conduct for which he seeks to convict Trump, Congress would have to write sweeping laws that could easily be wielded by one party against another to punish objectionable political conduct. That would undermine both electoral politics and the rule of law.

This indictment shouldn’t stand.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/this-trump-indictment-shouldnt-stand/
Click to expand...

Trump is going to die in prison for his very real crimes
 
Truth Detector said:
Turley and Dershowitz are law professors. Dershowitz is a Democrat and does not support Trump nor voted for him dumbass.

Do you ever have anything but whiney thread trolling drivel to add to any debate? :palm:
Click to expand...

Dershowitz was buddies with Epstein and Prince Andrew, no wonder he carries so much water for Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top