Marener
Platinum Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 26,262
- 12,356
- 973
You apparently don’t understand what this thread is about.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Breaking News: Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect Jack Smith's Trump Prosecution
- Thread starter MAGA Macho Man
- Start date
Concerned American
Diamond Member
And your speculation hasn't even been looked at yet and YOU'VE already passed judgement. STFU.After evidence was presented, moron.
No numbnuts it was a summary judgement no evidence was presentedAfter evidence was presented, moron.
Winston
Platinum Member
Please, educate yourself.No numbnuts it was a summary judgement no evidence was presented
by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried
Summary judgment - Wikipedia
Wiki is not a source dumbassPlease, educate yourself.
by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried
Summary judgment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Trump wasn't allowed to present any evidence. Hell the judge didn't want Trump to say anything in his defense.
But show what evidence Trump produced
He is not an alleged criminal
He is facing beliefs that he did something illegal and he does not have to disprove that. In fact, facts will have to be presented and then conclusions made that he did things illegally.
Lib loons present this as all wrapped up and finished. Reality is it’s barely begun
He has been criminally charged.
Not true. Not at all.Wiki is not a source dumbass
Trump wasn't allowed to present any evidence. Hell the judge didn't want Trump to say anything in his defense.
But show what evidence Trump produced
Winston
Platinum Member
Wiki is not a source dumbass
Trump wasn't allowed to present any evidence. Hell the judge didn't want Trump to say anything in his defense.
But show what evidence Trump produced
SUMMARY JUDGMENT Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
Find the legal definition of SUMMARY JUDGMENT from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. A quick decision of a court based on briefings and affidavits where material facts are not disputed or where the court’s opinion is used for judgment....
thelawdictionary.org
Does Black's Law make you feel better? I mean seriously, if you don't understand the concept of summary judgement perhaps you should stay out of the thread. Evidence was presented, and it was overwhelming that there was no dispute, no "question" to answer in a trial. I mean come on, it was always known that Trump consistently over-valued his assets, is for no other reason than his own vanity, got to make Forbes list. But there were real business reasons, over-value them to get loans, under value them to pay taxes, not to mention insurance. Trump consistently pushed the envelope, even bragged about it.
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,644
- 57,172
- 2,290
It's amazing how consistently wrong you are.Wiki is not a source dumbass
Trump wasn't allowed to present any evidence. Hell the judge didn't want Trump to say anything in his defense.
But show what evidence Trump produced
Read the summary judgement. Trump's lawyers were allowed to present a defense.
What evidence was trump allowed to present?SUMMARY JUDGMENT Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
Find the legal definition of SUMMARY JUDGMENT from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. A quick decision of a court based on briefings and affidavits where material facts are not disputed or where the court’s opinion is used for judgment....
Does Black's Law make you feel better? I mean seriously, if you don't understand the concept of summary judgement perhaps you should stay out of the thread. Evidence was presented, and it was overwhelming that there was no dispute, no "question" to answer in a trial. I mean come on, it was always known that Trump consistently over-valued his assets, is for no other reason than his own vanity, got to make Forbes list. But there were real business reasons, over-value them to get loans, under value them to pay taxes, not to mention insurance. Trump consistently pushed the envelope, even bragged about it.
You failed again what evidence was trump allowed to submit?It's amazing how consistently wrong you are.
Read the summary judgement. Trump's lawyers were allowed to present a defense.
Story just broke.
Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial
The challenge involves a law used to charge hundreds in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and also levied against former president Donald Trump.webcache.googleusercontent.com
Obstruction of an official proceeding can be accomplished by other means - OTHERWISE - than just by shredding documents/altering documents/removing documents. J6 already made this a fact
Lol.He is not an alleged criminal
He is facing beliefs that he did something illegal and he does not have to disprove that.
I love how the way he's facing formal criminal allegations means he's not an alleged criminal.
Story just broke.
Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial
The challenge involves a law used to charge hundreds in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and also levied against former president Donald Trump.
Justices to Decide Scope of Obstruction Charge Central to Trump’s Jan. 6 Case
A ruling by the Supreme Court could affect the cases of hundreds of people charged in connection with the Capitol attack — and potentially the prosecution of Donald J. Trump.
1miseryindex
Platinum Member
typical lib projectionJust remember folks, conservative justices have already decided the case in their head. The only thing to do now is find a way to justify it.
The text of the law is irrelevant.
1miseryindex
Platinum Member
lawfare? should be called lawCrimeTrump appointed Constitution originalists to the court. They will do the right sacred thing and shut Jack Smith's out of control lawfare down.
Lol. Typical USSC history.typical lib projection
Says shitforbrains who thinks he needs to follow slavery laws.This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things you could have written.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Democrats HATE that the SCOTUS now decides cases based on the Constitution vs activist court opinions.Trump appointed Constitution originalists to the court. They will do the right sacred thing and shut Jack Smith's out of control lawfare down.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 438
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 219
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 164
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 177
- Replies
- 124
- Views
- 349
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 681
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 41
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8084
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-