There is historical precedent for trump's attempts at retribution.

[berg80]

This is the sort of fascism the dems have fully embraced, they want to claim accusations are evidence

The evidence is presented in detail in the indictment. I can't do anything if you choose to remain ignorant of what is contained in the document I provided.

 

[berg80]

LOL, an accusation does not evidence make. So you failed your bar exam too, eh?

The evidence contained in the indictment does not make for a conviction. It is evidence nonetheless.

Are you asserting that grand juries make their determinations on accusations without evidence to back them up?

 

[Concerned American]

Of course it is. Maybe your ignorance stems from not having read the indictment.

An indictment is an accusation, nothing more. Educate yourself, avail yourself to Merriam Webster.

 

[struth]

The evidence is presented in detail in the indictment. I can't do anything if you choose to remain ignorant of what is contained in the document I provided.

Am indictment is merely an accusation it is not evidence.

The illegally appointed lawyer could never actually present evidence and was tossed out of court

 

[SeaMajor7]

Indictments by disparate grand juries based on the evidence is not proof of anything except the justice system working as it was always intended to work.

The Grand Jury, aka the American Electorate, has found Trump innocent of ALL false LAWFARE charges.
SUCK IT STALINBERG!!!!

 

[Concerned American]

The evidence is presented in detail in the indictment. I can't do anything if you choose to remain ignorant of what is contained in the document I provided.

Grand juries do not determine guilt moron. Sounds like you have the intelligence of those chosen for that grand jury though.

 

[berg80]

An indictment is an accusation, nothing more. Educate yourself, avail yourself to Merriam Webster.

The evidence contained in the indictment does not make for a conviction. It is evidence nonetheless.

Are you asserting that grand juries make their determinations on accusations without evidence to back them up?

 

[Concerned American]

Indictments by disparate grand juries based on the evidence is not proof of anything except the justice system working as it was always intended to work.

When was the last time you heard of anyone being convicted by a grand jury, moron?

 

[berg80]

Grand juries do not determine guilt

Right. They determine whether the evidence meets a threshold worthy of an indictment. The same evidence to be presented in court.

 

[berg80]

When was the last time you heard of anyone being convicted by a grand jury, moron?

I am not claiming that has ever happened. Are you illiterate?

Grand juries determine whether the evidence meets a threshold worthy of an indictment.

 

[Concerned American]

The evidence contained in the indictment does not make for a conviction. It is evidence nonetheless.

As is this ^^^ post. Evidence that you haven't a clue as to how the legal system works. Let me know when that indictment is presented as evidence. Fail.

 

[struth]

The evidence contained in the indictment does not make for a conviction. It is evidence nonetheless.

Are you asserting that grand juries make their determinations on accusations without evidence to back them up?

That what a grand jury does, the heat one side of a case, the Gov, and officially indict, accuse someone of a crime.

Their accusation is not evidence

 

[berg80]

As is this ^^^ post. Evidence that you haven't a clue as to how the legal system works. Let me know when that indictment is presented as evidence. Fail.

They determine whether the evidence meets a threshold worthy of an indictment. The same evidence to be presented in court.

 

[Concerned American]

I am not claiming that has ever happened. Are you illiterate?

Grand juries determine whether the evidence meets a threshold worthy of an indictment.

Bingo, an indictment is NOT evidence. The defense had no opportunity to dispute what was presented to the grand jury. It is an ACCUSATION. Do you know what that is? I could accuse you of having a brain and that grand jury would indict you for it. None of it would be evidence of the truth though.

 

[berg80]

Their accusation is not evidence

Wrong. Evidence is presented to a grand jury so it can decide whether it is sufficient to indict. Otherwise, what would they be making their determination on?

 

[berg80]

Bingo, an indictment is NOT evidence.

Evidence is detailed in the indictment. You'd know that if you had read the indictment.

 

[struth]

Wrong. Evidence is presented to a grand jury so it can decide whether it is sufficient to indict. Otherwise, what would they be making their determination on?

They make their determination on what the govt tells them.

And indictment is not evidence, it’s literally the accusation

 

[Concerned American]

Evidence is detailed in the indictment. You'd know that if you had read the indictment.

Who disputed the veracity of what was presented to the grand jury? It ain't evidence until it is presented at trial. Grand juries determine probable cause to take someone to trial. I'm not going to continue to argue with an idiot.

indictment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[berg80]

They make their determination on what the govt tells them.

Witnesses testify in front of grand juries to corroborate the evidence being presented.

 

[berg80]

Who disputed the veracity of what was presented to the grand jury? It ain't evidence until it is presented at trial. Grand juries determine probable cause to take someone to trial. I'm not going to continue to argue with an idiot.

indictment

www.law.cornell.edu

See post #79.