Trump doesn't have a chance.

[Billiejeens]

Rounding error?

The Bragg prostitution is predicated on a faulty indictment. The judge is a hack and allowing it to continue. The jury comes from the libtard haven known as NY county.

An acquittal is a possibility despite all that because the Bragg prostitution is a shit show. But all things considered, the odds are stacked against Trump.

Until an appellate court hears it.

 

[BackAgain]

Until an appellate court hears it.

Exactly. Or perhaps it will take two or three appellate courts.

 

[Billiejeens]

Exactly. Or perhaps it will take two or three appellate courts.

I think that the same appellate court that threw out Weinstein's conviction might get this.
They overthrew it based on the law, not the defendant.
The law is definitely on President Trump's side.

 

[BackAgain]

I think that the same appellate court that threw out Weinstein's conviction might get this.
They overthrew it based on the law, not the defendant.
The law is definitely on President Trump's side.

NY has an odd way of naming its courts. For felony trials, the lowest level is nevertheless called “The Supreme Court.”

For the first level of appeal, after a felony conviction, is in “The Supreme Court, Appellate Division.”

The next level is NY State’s highest court, “The Court of Appeals.”

If Trump still needed to appeal the judgment of conviction after that, the next stop would be the SCOTUS. But that would require an issue implicating the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Billiejeens]

NY has an odd way of naming its courts. For felony trials, the lowest level is nevertheless called “The Supreme Court.”

For the first level of appeal, after a felony conviction, is in “The Supreme Court, Appellate Division.”

The next level is NY State’s highest court, “The Court of Appeals.”

If Trump still needed to appeal the judgment of conviction after that, the next stop would be the SCOTUS. But that would require an issue implicating the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of the name, any court above a trial court would be an appeals court, yes?

 

[Billiejeens]

Remember all those cases of fraud that the courts wouldn't hear in 2020 because of the person or persons not having standing to bring a case.

The entire case is based on President Trump supposedly breaking a federal law - which Bragg doesn't have standing to bring.


Hmm.

 

[BackAgain]

Regardless of the name, any court above a trial court would be an appeals court, yes?

Yep.

 

[beagle9]

No dummy, Trump is in trouble because he is a fucking degenerate that has to pay off his fuck dollars during campaign and have it fraudulently recorded as company bussiness expenses.

And that’s just one of his many many legal problems stemming from his lying, cheating, self-absorbed, law skirting conduct.

And yet this undisciplined fraud and charlatan is who you rw idiots think should have the responsibility and power of the highest office. It’s nuts.

Makes you really hate Joe Biden doesn't it ????

 

[AntonToo]

Makes you really hate Joe Biden doesn't it ????

 

[Skylar]

Every single witness against him will be his closest allies , his best friends , his own family , his personally selected cabinet while he was president , The farthest right wing politician his old lawyers and his closest business associates . But he still shouldn't whine because he should be in front of the court for treason and when found guilty should be put to death as the law and constitution prescribes.

That whiny little bitch sniveled about the temperature in the courtroom, insisting they were doing it on purpose

That cuck is always the victim. Someone's dick is always in his ass. He's always being fucked by someone.

He can absolutely mewl and complain and wallow about whatever he likes. It wont change a fucking thing

 

[Skylar]

Every single witness against him will be his closest allies , his best friends , his own family , his personally selected cabinet while he was president , The farthest right wing politician his old lawyers and his closest business associates . But he still shouldn't whine because he should be in front of the court for treason and when found guilty should be put to death as the law and constitution prescribes.

Treason is a very specific crime, which Trump doesn't meet. The evidence justifies the charges against him. Not the charges you're levying.

Trump should be given due process of law and a fair trial. And then be held to the consequences of verdict of the jury, subject to judicial review.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Every single witness against him will be his closest allies , his best friends , his own family , his personally selected cabinet while he was president , The farthest right wing politician his old lawyers and his closest business associates . But he still shouldn't whine because he should be in front of the court for treason and when found guilty should be put to death as the law and constitution prescribes.

You mean President Trump doesn't have a chance ?

Hahahahahahaha

 

[beagle9]

Obama's new confused look eh ? No, it's Obama's deflection gesture when he gets flustered as people speak the truth. Seen Bidens poles lately ?

 

[beagle9]

Treason is a very specific crime, which Trump doesn't meet. The evidence justifies the charges against him. Not the charges you're levying.

Trump should be given due process of law and a fair trial. And then be held to the consequences of verdict of the jury, subject to judicial review.

Can't and won't happen just as long as you have so many in government with guilt on their hands. Trump has far less on his hands because he wasn't a lifelong politician. As long as people like Biden are able to get away with so much, then the precedent has been set, otherwise meaning that there is no historical history to use in a courtroom especially after this boondoggle of a clown show is over.

 

[Skylar]

Can't and won't happen just as long as you have so many in government with guilt on their hands.

WHat 'guilt on their hands' are you referring to?

Is this where you start getting all religious again, and insist that your faith somehow defines the legal proceedings?

If so, good luck with that.

Trump has far less on his hands because he wasn't a lifelong politician.

Shall we discuss the evidence against Trump? The documents with classified markings in his possession after he'd had his lawyers falsely convey to the FBI that they had all been returned? His staff admitted that they had been told to move the very documents in question before the FBI could claim them? The staff that admitted that they were directed to delete video evidence?

The recording of Trump admitting the documents he was showing off were secret, that he could have declassified them as president, but that he couldn't now?

You're vague on what constitutes 'guilt on their hands'....because you know when we get specific about Trump, the charges against him are thoroughly justified.

As long as people like Biden are able to get away with so much, then the precedent has been set, otherwise meaning that there is no historical history to use in a courtroom especially after this boondoggle of a clown show is over.

Or....we try Trump on the charges the evidence supports. As we are now.

 

[beagle9]

WHat 'guilt on their hands' are you referring to?

Is this where you start getting all religious again, and insist that your faith somehow defines the legal proceedings?

If so, good luck with that.


Shall we discuss the evidence against Trump? The documents with classified markings in his possession after he'd had his lawyers falsely convey to the FBI that they had all been returned? His staff admitted that they had been told to move the very documents in question before the FBI could claim them? The staff that admitted that they were directed to delete video evidence?

The recording of Trump admitting the documents he was showing off were secret, that he could have declassified them as president, but that he couldn't now?

You're vague on what constitutes 'guilt on their hands'....because you know when we get specific about Trump, the charges against him are thoroughly justified.

Or....we try Trump on the charges the evidence supports. As we are now.

1st of all, when are you going to apply all your hypocritical bull shite on your currently being protected against prosecution "Biden alleged CRIME family" ? Until then you are just showing yourself to be a partisan hack that keeps Trump living in your head rent free on a daily basis.

So what is it with you Democrat's anyway ? What do you think Trump is going to do in his presidency that makes it so bad for you ? Did he do it the last time he was president, and if so explain what he did to you that made you hate him so bad ?

 

[beagle9]

Start at 3:10 if you like, and here is my take on the issue at hand.

OK, so the prosecutions stance is that the intent was to interfer with the election when the Trump team or Trump himself allegedly tried to stop negative stories before the election, but that's all bull shite and they know it, and here's why.........

So if a person decides to run for any office, and his or her opponent's along with their cult or cult followers start digging up dirt on the person or on their family in hopes to affect the outcome of the election, then how is it that they are allowed to engage in election interference from that angle, but it's not allowed for the person to defend themselves against those who are digging up dirt in hopes to affect an election outcome ?????

It all becomes election interference regardless of who's doing it, and this is why election interference is not illegal, but rather it's just a natural phenomenon that occurs when two sides go head to head trying to win the hearts and minds of the voters.

The voters are the jury, and not 12 people in a box deciding for millions as to whether or not the person is fit for office or not.

What took place in that court room is definitely election interference of the worse kind, and the use of or weaponization of the judicial or legal system in order to negatively affect the outcome of the election, otherwise by actually attempting to lock up an opponent is what was illegal, and especially when what the opponent done or is being accused of was not illegal.

 

[lennypartiv]

The framers would have seen the mob at the Capitol as traitors​

They were patriots protesting the stolen election.

 

[jbander]

They were patriots protesting the stolen election.

There is no question at all whether they are traitors of not , they are traitors by all definition. But in the constitution they say that a traitor can't be charged under certain circumstances , but in no way is that saying they aren't traitors. Everyone who supports Trump and Jan6th is a traitor by definition.

 

[AntonToo]

Start at 3:10 if you like, and here is my take on the issue at hand.

OK, so the prosecutions stance is that the intent was to interfer with the election when the Trump team or Trump himself allegedly tried to stop negative stories before the election, but that's all bull shite and they know it, and here's why.........

So if a person decides to run for any office, and his or her opponent's along with their cult or cult followers start digging up dirt on the person or on their family in hopes to affect the outcome of the election, then how is it that they are allowed to engage in election interference from that angle, but it's not allowed for the person to defend themselves against those who are digging up dirt in hopes to affect an election outcome ?????

It all becomes election interference regardless of who's doing it, and this is why election interference is not illegal, but rather it's just a natural phenomenon that occurs when two sides go head to head trying to win the hearts and minds of the voters.

The voters are the jury, and not 12 people in a box deciding for millions as to whether or not the person is fit for office or not.

What took place in that court room is definitely election interference of the worse kind, and the use of or weaponization of the judicial or legal system in order to negatively affect the outcome of the election, otherwise by actually attempting to lock up an opponent is what was illegal, and especially when what the opponent done or is being accused of was not illegal.

Thats a lot of words to explain to us how you fundamentally don't understand what the word illicit electioneering mean.

It's perfectly LEGAL to interfere in elections by legal means. It's only illegal if you do it by ILLEGAL MEANS, such as Falsifying Bussiness Records.