You be the judge ? The latest Trump indictments

[Tommy Tainant]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

 

[Mac1958]

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Yes and yes.

Trump just keeps incriminating himself. He has the mind of a spoiled child and he's just acting out because he's frustrated and scared and doesn't know any better. The rubes will buy whatever he says. And worse, his lawyers aren't much better. A good lawyer won't go near him.

And yeah, we have no choice but to prosecute. What has happened over the last couple of years is historic, and if we don't prosecute, we're just giving permission for more. The problem is, the Constitution and our laws were not written for a person like this. The Founders simply didn't anticipate this.

His mentor, literally, was mob lawyer Roy Cohn. Cohn's fingerprints are all over Trump's behaviors.

 

[jbrownson0831]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

All stupid like the rest of them.
And you for this thread.

 

[jbrownson0831]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

Amazing how nothing but crickets from you and your ilk on the real criminals infesting our politics, with actual proof coming out each day on their felonies.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

All stupid like the rest of them.
And you for this thread.

But why are they stupid ? Explain what they got wrong.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Amazing how nothing but crickets from you and your ilk on the real criminals infesting our politics, with actual proof coming out each day on their felonies.

There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Political persecutions that would make Stalin proud.

 

[debbiedowner]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

Give it up, you will never change a diehard magat twisted mind. Never, trump is a god to them.

 

[2aguy]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

They are a violation of the 1st Amendment, and should be dismissed by any judge who hears the case.

They are not well founded, and are fig leafs to drag Trump into a democrat party controlled court, ruled by an obama judge, with a democrat party jury..........

The democrats who murdered Emmet Till were found not guilty by a jury of democrats.......now the democrats are going to convict Trump on fake charges....

You don't want to bring up hilary or biden because they did break the law, over and over again.......

 

[2aguy]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

Here....an actual lawyer pointing out that this is nothing more than crap to drag Trump before democrats...

ONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment.


The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …
What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time.

Jonathan Turley concerned about 'chilling' new Trump charges: 'When is the price too high?'

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued the Constitution protects former President Donald Trump's claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

www.foxnews.com

 

[MinTrut]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

We needed a 30th thread about these garbage indictments?

 

[MinTrut]

Here....an actual lawyer pointing out that this is nothing more than crap to drag Trump before democrats...

ONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment.


The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …
What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time.

Jonathan Turley concerned about 'chilling' new Trump charges: 'When is the price too high?'

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued the Constitution protects former President Donald Trump's claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

www.foxnews.com

Thread.

 

[jbrownson0831]

But why are they stupid ? Explain what they got wrong.

A myriad of charges deferred until later with no actual proof of wrongdoing....as opposed to proof after proof coming out about protected Joey Capone.
That's not stupid to you? Dims hope people will turn against Trump based on all the negative publicity which they won't have to prove, since they cannot. The problem is, people already cant stand the economy or any of Poopeypants misdoings, they see his actual crimes, and also see the Dims acting way over the top against Trump.
Not going to turn out well for the party of America haters.

 

[bripat9643]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

You're an idiot. Everything you posted is a lie.

 

[jbrownson0831]

There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

Pertinent here....your silence about true crimes and your incessant babbling about no proven crimes.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes and yes.

Trump just keeps incriminating himself. He has the mind of a spoiled child and he's just acting out because he's frustrated and scared and doesn't know any better. The rubes will buy whatever he says. And worse, his lawyers aren't much better. A good lawyer won't go near him.

And yeah, we have no choice but to prosecute. What has happened over the last couple of years is historic, and if we don't prosecute, we're just giving permission for more. The problem is, the Constitution and our laws were not written for a person like this. The Founders simply didn't anticipate this.

His mentor, literally, was mob lawyer Roy Cohn. Cohn's fingerprints are all over Trump's behaviors.

How has Trump incriminated himself?

 

[Mac1958]

How has Trump incriminated himself?

Nothing. Fake news.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Here....an actual lawyer pointing out that this is nothing more than crap to drag Trump before democrats...

ONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment.


The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. …
What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time.

Jonathan Turley concerned about 'chilling' new Trump charges: 'When is the price too high?'

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued the Constitution protects former President Donald Trump's claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

www.foxnews.com

It isnt a first amendment issue.
Its about what he did.
He approached different individuals with allegations that he could not verify and were not true anyway. Arizona being one of the most outrageous.
Its all in the doc in the OP. You should read it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We needed a 30th thread about these garbage indictments?

What is "garbage" avout them ?

 

[jbrownson0831]

It isnt a first amendment issue.
Its about what he did.
He approached different individuals with allegations that he could not verify and were not true anyway. Arizona being one of the most outrageous.
Its all in the doc in the OP. You should read it.

Anything can be in a document, especially if it never has to be proven.
You are like a big ole catfish latching onto stinkbait that was prepared just to get you to bite it. No discernment about what is really going on.