Challenge to Democrats Show Me An Actual Crime That Trump Is Being Charged With and You Can Prove He Broke and I'll Stay Off Of Here For A Month

It won't. I am willing to wait and see it play out. I can go with whatever the juries decide after actually sitting through a trial, hearing the witnesses, evidence and argument from both sides, as it is the American Way to resolve truth and justice. Just like you were taught in school.
Using the legal system to go after a political opponent who questions your election is NOT the "American Way." It is the 'Way' of Banana Republics.
 
You're not very smart, are you?
4i6Ckte.gif


July 19, 2023

Judge rejects Trump's request to move Stormy Daniels hush-money case into federal court

~~~~~~
 
'Suspected crimes' are not crimes you idiot. Example: If I 'suspect' you of beating and raping your mother. You have committed no crime. But I can go out and tell everyone you did? Come on.



That's why I'm smarter than the dodo democrats and I put that I need proof in the title before they would be able to win the challenge.
 
'Suspected crimes' are not crimes you idiot. Example: If I 'suspect' you of beating and raping your mother. You have committed no crime. But I can go out and tell everyone you did? Come on.
PLEASE DO NOT MENTION ANYONE'S MOTHER. YOU FUCKING IDIOT WHO SHOULD'VE NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN. See?

Now,

Suspected criminal activity. Of real crimes.

In a court of law the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence. Outside of a court we can call the charged guilty. Trump has done it to many people who were only accused of crimes. So you should understand. And asking people to prove a crime was committed? We may know the facts of a charge, and indictment. For many of us this is enough. Guilty men can be found 'innocent' but does that mean the crime they were charged with didn't happen?

And again: PLEASE DO NOT MENTION ANYONE'S MOTHER. YOU FUCKING IDIOT WHO SHOULD'VE NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN.
 
It won't. I am willing to wait and see it play out. I can go with whatever the juries decide after actually sitting through a trial, hearing the witnesses, evidence and argument from both sides, as it is the American Way to resolve truth and justice. Just like you were taught in school.
Was OJ Simpson guilty?
 
Exactly and I knew they wouldn't as that's the whole entire point. They're all a bunch of made-up stuff, and any of the real crimes that he supposedly committed it's impossible to find proof that it happened.
Fanny-Girl has a bunch of hearsay and a couple of indictments that she sliced and diced to make it seem ominous and overwhelming. She is using RICO which tells me she has no real evidence so, with intimidation (using threats of imprisonment) of so called 'witnesses' she intends to 'stitch' together some kind of over arching RICO beef. RICO was never meant for that in the first place. It was typically used to nail king pins in organized crime by having EVIDENCE of crimes by underlings. RICO let law enforcement nail the big guy with no real evidence of his/her personal wrong doing.

But, Fanny-Girl has no evidence of any crimes committed so, she's basically making it all up.
 
I thought so, but the jury said he was innocent and that was that. I bet Johnny Cochran was not a Republican lawyer. What do you think? Hell of an effective defense, eh?
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
 
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
He could turn a phrase, on the fly, in court with cameras rolling. In our system, every defendant deserves competent defense. Whatever he was paid, it was well worth the money, in the courtroom, not the courthouse steps or on news channels before the trial.
 

Forum List

Back
Top