SCOTUS: Trump's Crowning Achievement, ... So Far.

[BackAgain]

Didn't have the attention span to actually read the charges I see.
Because those charges are EXTREMELY "established."
If you could actually see anything but the inside of your own anus you would know this moron.

Didn’t have the brains to distinguish between charges and conviction, we all see.

You’re quite the pathetic retard.

 

[MagicMike]

Didn’t have the brains to distinguish between charges and conviction, we all see.

You’re quite the pathetic retard.

Tell me then wonder boy.
After you have read the charges against your cult king....and look at the evidence against him that generated these indictments, only some of which has been released for public consumption, what is your opinion of his guilt or innocence?
What would you say are the odds for or against him being able to launch a successful defense against this mountain of incriminating evidence against him?
Take your time kid.
I'll wait.

 

[BackAgain]

Tell me then wonder boy.

You have leave to just refer to me as “sir” or as “your highness.”

After you have read the charges against your cult king....

I don’t have a cult or a cult king or any king, you imbecile.

and look at the evidence against him that generated these indictments,

I don’t believe we’ve seen any evidence. Or, more accurately, none so far that qualifies as actual evidence

only some of which has been released for public consumption,

That’s a kind of crucial point. But it appears you miss the point.

what is your opinion of his guilt or innocence?

Unlike you, you jerkoff, I’m content to presume innocence in the eyes of the law. Why aren’t you?

What would you say are the odds for or against him being able to launch a successful defense against this mountain of incriminating evidence against him?

I wouldn’t say that there even is a mountain of evidence. That’s just your prejudgment talking.

Take your time kid.
I'll wait.

I’m sure I’m older than you are, child. And you will continue to wait. I’ll await actual evidence. You should, too.

 

[MagicMike]

You have leave to just refer to me as “sir” or as “your highness.”



I don’t have a cult or a cult king or any king, you imbecile.



I don’t believe we’ve seen any evidence. Or, more accurately, none so far that qualifies as actual evidence


That’s a kind of crucial point. But it appears you miss the point.

Unlike you, you jerkoff, I’m content to presume innocence in the eyes of the law. Why aren’t you?


I wouldn’t say that there even is a mountain of evidence. That’s just your prejudgment talking.


I’m sure I’m older than you are, child. And you will continue to wait. I’ll await actual evidence. You should, too.

Read the full Trump indictment on mishandling of classified documents

The former president faces federal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents, obstructing justice and making false statements.

www.pbs.org

 

[BackAgain]

Read the full Trump indictment on mishandling of classified documents

The former president faces federal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents, obstructing justice and making false statements.

www.pbs.org

Already read it.

It might help you to finally hold on to the fact that an indictment is not evidence of anything in the case.

 

[MagicMike]

Already read it.

It might help you to finally hold on to the fact that an indictment is not evidence of anything in the case.

You are so full of shit.
You border on comical.

 

[BackAgain]

You are so full of shit.
You border on comical.

No ma’am. I happen to be completely correct.

You don’t border on comical. You’re more just an ass clown

I educated one of your fellow ignorant libtards the other day. If you wish, I could try to educate even you. You don’t even need to ask all that nicely. Just let me know if you want me to provide you with proof that I’m right. I’d be happy to.

 

[Billiejeens]

Didn't have the attention span to actually read the charges I see.
Because those charges are EXTREMELY "established."
If you could actually see anything but the inside of your own anus you would know this moron.

You clearly don't know what established means.

 

[Billiejeens]

Already read it.

It might help you to finally hold on to the fact that an indictment is not evidence of anything in the case.

Any case.

 

[MagicMike]

No ma’am. I happen to be completely correct.

You don’t border on comical. You’re more just an ass clown

I educated one of your fellow ignorant libtards the other day. If you wish, I could try to educate even you. You don’t even need to ask all that nicely. Just let me know if you want me to provide you with proof that I’m right. I’d be happy to.

First provide me with proof that you actually read the indictments you lying fool.

 

[BackAgain]

First provide me with proof that you actually read the indictments you lying fool.

Why? You accused me of not having read the stupid shit. Back up your own baseless claim.

Oh. And my offer to educate you still stands despite the fact that you’re a lowlife scumbag liar.

 

[MagicMike]

You accused me of not having read the stupid shit. Back up your own baseless claim.

That's easy.
Only someone who hasn't actually read the indictments could be running around claiming there is no evidence for the charges.
Also, before you can "educate" someone it helps to have some education yourself.
You clearly don't.
Just a dumb kid.

Btw....still waiting for your answer on post #82.

 

[candycorn]

Obviously, Trump's SCOTUS selections have proven to be America's crowning grace, When he wins re-election from an indolent senile has-been, the court and hopefully the country will be saved from bizarrely incogitance .

Yeah, they've legalized discrimination. Thanks Bernie.

 

[BackAgain]

That's easy.
Only someone who hasn't actually read the indictments could be running around claiming there is no evidence for the charges.

False. Your ignorance is showing. Again.

Also, before you can "educate" someone it helps to have some education yourself.
You clearly don't.
Just a dumb kid.

No. You’re wrong again. I absolutely could educate you. I know you oppose such things. That’s why you’re afraid to ask.

Btw....still waiting for your answer on post #82.

By the way, as soon as you ask civilly to be educated, I will deign to educate you.

 

[MagicMike]

By the way, as soon as you ask civilly to be educated, I will deign to educate you.

Ok BrokeAgain.
I'll play along.
Let's have a look at this "education" you claim you can provide.

 

[MagicMike]

False. Your ignorance is showing. Again.

No. You’re wrong again. I absolutely could educate you. I know you oppose such things. That’s why you’re afraid to ask.

By the way, as soon as you ask civilly to be educated, I will deign to educate you.

Hey professor, I am still waiting for your answer to post #82.
Since (you claim) you have read the indictments perhaps we should go over them one by one so you can explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that the indictments aren't supported by evidence?
Or.....maybe you don't actually have the attention span for reading so you just pull non "facts" out of your ass and throw them against the wall hoping they'll stick without anyone questioning them.
Typical MAGAt Trumptard!

 

[BackAgain]

Ok BrokeAgain.
I'll play along.
Let's have a look at this "education" you claim you can provide.

Good. It wasn’t exactly civilly asked. But I’ll be magnanimous.

3.2 CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT NOT EVIDENCE—
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE—BURDEN OF PROOF ​

The indictment is not evidence. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charge. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until the government proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the defendant does not have to testify or present any evidence. The defendant does not have to prove innocence; the government has the burden of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

3.2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence—Presumption of Innocence—Burden of Proof | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

You can compare it with the so-called “model instructions.”

1.2 THE CHARGE—PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE​

This is a criminal case brought by the United States government. The government charges the defendant with [specify crime charged]. The charge against the defendant [is] [are] contained in the indictment. The indictment simply describes the charge the government brings against the defendant. The indictment is not evidence and does not prove anything.

The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charge and is presumed innocent unless and until the government proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the defendant has the right to remain silent and never has to prove innocence or present any evidence.

[In order to help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a brief summary of the elements of the crime that the government must prove to make its case: [supply brief statement of elements of crime].]

1.2 The Charge—Presumption of Innocence | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

See anything similar?

Do you grasp why an indictment is not evidence? I’ll assist you. An indictment is a charge (accusation) or a set of charges. It tells you what the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

But saying, “I accuse you” isn’t proof of your claim.

 

[MagicMike]

Good. It wasn’t exactly civilly asked. But I’ll be magnanimous.

3.2 CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT NOT EVIDENCE—
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE—BURDEN OF PROOF ​

3.2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence—Presumption of Innocence—Burden of Proof | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

You can compare it with the so-called “model instructions.”

1.2 THE CHARGE—PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE​

1.2 The Charge—Presumption of Innocence | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

See anything similar?

Do you grasp why an indictment is not evidence? I’ll assist you. An indictment is a charge (accusation) or a set of charges. It tells you what the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

But saying, “I accuse you” isn’t proof of your claim.

Thanks for nothing you tedious, disingenious TWIT.
"Innocent until proven guilty" though is far from an adequate defense against the serious and very REAL charges little orange golfboy is facing.
You can talk in ridiculous circles all you want but the fact remains....you have not answered the question.

See post #82.

 

[BackAgain]

Thanks for nothing you tedious, disingenious TWIT.
"Innocent until proven guilty" though is far from an adequate defense against the serious and very REAL charges little orange golfboy is facing.
You can talk in ridiculous circles all you want but the fact remains....you have not answered the question.

See post #82.

hey, scumbag. Get with it . Innocent in the eyes of the law until and unless proved guilty is the bedrock of our criminal Justice system.

And the point of my post wasn’t the presumption of innocence anyway, you unkotare you. The point, you pathetic asshole, was that an indictment is not evidence of a damn thing.

Also, I did answer your retarded post 82. So, gfy.

 

[Stryker___777]

"Innocent until proven guilty" though is far from an adequate defense against the serious and very REAL charges little orange golfboy is facing.

Why does this make you so happy? You want to watch Trump physically suffer in jail? If he ends up pardoning himself after winning the election it will be because the indictments motivated more people to vote for him