Now we see what the judges do. Trump wins in court.

[lafayette]

My "claim" is that the statue of limitations for that crime would run out before the date you gave. Do I need to support that? It's a fact. You then claimed that some sort of extension could be added to that statute of limitations. Do you have any basis to that claim? If so...I'd love to hear what it is!

No, it's an allegation. You need to support your claim with fact. Do that.

 

[BackAgain]

It's legally possible.

None of the cases survive an appellate court though, so that would be another round of fun

Possible I don’t dispute.

What I said is that it ain’t ever gonna happen.

 

[Billiejeens]

Oh wow, I had no idea that the judge had already granted the government motion for dismissal without prejudice.

Does this also mean that the statute of limitations are tolled during Trump's presidency?

There is no statue of limitations on murder.

 

[Billiejeens]

No, it's an allegation. You need to support your claim with fact. Do that.

You clearly don't know how any of this works.

 

[Man With A Plan]

No, it's an allegation. You need to support your claim with fact. Do that.

It's a FACT that the statute of limitations will run out on what Trump has been charged with before he leaves office in 2028! You are alleging that there is something that will extend those crimes beyond the statute of limitations but you're unable to tell us what that something is! I'm assuming you can't because you don't have that information...having listened to yet another lie put out by the left leaning media!

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a FACT that the statute of limitations will run out on what Trump has been charged with before he leaves office in 2028! You are alleging that there is something that will extend those crimes beyond the statute of limitations but you're unable to tell us what that something is! I'm assuming you can't because you don't have that information...having listened to yet another lie put out by the left leaning media!

He's a troll.
Respond accordingly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your lies are forever unpersuasive. Sucks to be you. It always has sucked to be you.

I'm not worried. You'll spend 10 pages proving me right, as you always do, when this comes up. Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a FACT that the statute of limitations will run out on what Trump has been charged with before he leaves office in 2028! You are alleging that there is something that will extend those crimes beyond the statute of limitations but you're unable to tell us what that something is! I'm assuming you can't because you don't have that information...having listened to yet another lie put out by the left leaning media!

Don't worry.

The fat orange criminal will no doubt go on more crime sprees, so he will have new charges waiting for him in 2029.

 

[jc456]

Of course the US can reuse it again. I have guided through this whole discussion, with you then saying, "But..." with nothing of worth to support yourself.

All you need to do is post something like this:

Without prejudice​

If the judge rules to dismiss your case without prejudice, it means that the prosecutor can refile charges against you. In this situation, prejudice means the court made a ruling of some type. In making the dismissal, the judge is saying that something went wrong in the case, which is usually something about the prosecution’s case breaking a rule, but that he or she is not saying anything about your guilty or innocence.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not worried. You'll spend 10 pages proving me right, as you always do, when this comes up. Thanks.

Farty is forever determined to be as much off topic as possible.

And his ad hominems blow more than Kamalalala.

 

[jc456]

Don't worry.

The fat orange criminal will no doubt go on more crime sprees, so he will have new charges waiting for him in 2029.

Funny thing is without prejudice admits mistakes were made by the prosecution.

Without prejudice​

If the judge rules to dismiss your case without prejudice, it means that the prosecutor can refile charges against you. In this situation, prejudice means the court made a ruling of some type. In making the dismissal, the judge is saying that something went wrong in the case, which is usually something about the prosecution’s case breaking a rule, but that he or she is not saying anything about your guilty or innocence.

 

[jc456]

Farty is forever determined to be as much off topic as possible.

And his ad hominems blow more than Kamalalala.

you're wrong. Be a better person and concede.

Without prejudice​

If the judge rules to dismiss your case without prejudice, it means that the prosecutor can refile charges against you. In this situation, prejudice means the court made a ruling of some type. In making the dismissal, the judge is saying that something went wrong in the case, which is usually something about the prosecution’s case breaking a rule, but that he or she is not saying anything about your guilty or innocence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Farty is forever determined to be as much off topic as possible.

And his ad hominems blow more than Kamalalala.

Asking someone to step up and argue a defense against the cases is right on topic.

We already know you can't.

Stop whining and let someone else try to step up.

 

[BackAgain]

you're wrong. Be a better person and concede.

Without prejudice​

If the judge rules to dismiss your case without prejudice, it means that the prosecutor can refile charges against you. In this situation, prejudice means the court made a ruling of some type. In making the dismissal, the judge is saying that something went wrong in the case, which is usually something about the prosecution’s case breaking a rule, but that he or she is not saying anything about your guilty or innocence.

There is nothing to concede (although your post is unrelated to the quote of mine).

As I said, we know what “without prejudice means.” That’s not the question.

The question remains whether the government will ever bother to even try the futile act of re-filing.

But let’s see, first, if it’s even possible. The motion to dismiss is still pending. And if denied, that can be appealed.

After that, with or without prejudice, the case goes to”bye bye.”

 

[BackAgain]

Asking someone to step up and argue a defense against the cases is right on topic.

That’s not what you were doing, fraud boi.

We already know you can't.

I already have. As you know but persist in lying about. Still sucks to be you.

Stop whining and let someone else try to step up.

You’re the one whining.

The thread topic, by the way, is about waiting to see what the judges do.

Make a bigger fool of yourself — if there’s any room left!

 

[two_iron]

I wonder if President Trump is going to have jack smith hunted down and then hang it, for treason, from a bridge inside the dc beltway.

Obviously, it has to be an "official act" to qualify for immunity, per SCOTUS, but the message it would deliver would put the country back on the right track. Make pedophiles afraid again.

 

[lafayette]

It's a FACT that the statute of limitations will run out on what Trump has been charged with before he leaves office in 2028! You are alleging that there is something that will extend those crimes beyond the statute of limitations but you're unable to tell us what that something is! I'm assuming you can't because you don't have that information...having listened to yet another lie put out by the left leaning media!

That is your understanding, but it is not fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s not what you were doing

It of course was what I was doing. But I am no longer asking you, because we already know you either can't or won't.

So someone else can step up.

 

[lafayette]

He's a troll.
Respond accordingly.

Says the troll.

 

[lafayette]

There is nothing to concede (although your post is unrelated to the quote of mine).

As I said, we know what “without prejudice means.” That’s not the question.

The question remains whether the government will ever bother to even try the futile act of re-filing.

But let’s see, first, if it’s even possible. The motion to dismiss is still pending. And if denied, that can be appealed.

After that, with or without prejudice, the case goes to”bye bye.”

You don't understand is the issue.