When trump's retribution tour begins, could someone tell me if....

There are many other traits of banana republics, as we said,
Elections may happen, but they are usually rigged or run with a single candidate. Today the term banana republic is used by politicians and political commentators to describe scenarios of corruption, repression, and failures to control executive power.

...and...using the corrupt legal system to jail the opposition.

Sure there are. But when talking about Banana Republics either you make yourself clear, which you didn't, you just expected me to know which part of a banana republic you're supposedly talking about.

The US has two candidates (viable) ever damn election. The Republicans ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO CHANGE THIS EITHER.
 
Bondi needs to prosecute the Soros DAs for their Lawfare, i.e. Prosecutorial Misconduct and Election Interference.
Let's say you were a grand juror who was presented with evidence like this........

The Defendant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

11. The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.
In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:

a. The Defendant's Vice President—who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.

b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department—appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes—told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.

c. The Director of National Intelligence—the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security—disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.

d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA")—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.

e. Senior White House attorneys—selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.


Or in the classified docs case, let's say you were shown a copy of the subpoena trump did not comply with. Demanding the return of classified materials in trump's possession he had taken when he left office. It was an undeniable violation of black letter law.

How do you maintain fidelity to your oath as a grand juror and not vote to indict?
 
the grand jurors trumples don't like talking about should be worried? They were an essential cog in our system of justice that came to conclusions at odds with Baby Donald's hollow pleas of innocence. Making it necessary to demonize them. Will they be on Bondi's list to pay a price for performing their civic duty?
I think those who were involved in the kangaroo courts should be worried. Partaking in a kangaroo court is not a civil duty, in fact, it's the opposite.
 
the grand jurors trumples don't like talking about should be worried? They were an essential cog in our system of justice that came to conclusions at odds with Baby Donald's hollow pleas of innocence. Making it necessary to demonize them. Will they be on Bondi's list to pay a price for performing their civic duty?
One of several, daily, TDS threads by the sore loser.
 
Let's say you were a grand juror who was presented with evidence like this........

The Defendant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

11. The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.
In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:

a. The Defendant's Vice President—who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.

b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department—appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes—told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.

c. The Director of National Intelligence—the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security—disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.

d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA")—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.

e. Senior White House attorneys—selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.


Or in the classified docs case, let's say you were shown a copy of the subpoena trump did not comply with. Demanding the return of classified materials in trump's possession he had taken when he left office. It was an undeniable violation of black letter law.

How do you maintain fidelity to your oath as a grand juror and not vote to indict?
That long,tedious cut and paste contains accusations. We can maintain fidelity to the truth by understanding you mindlessly cut and paste accusations while fraudulently trying to represent accusations as facts.
 
You're flailing again. Do you have anything of value to add? Not really interested in more of your mindless claptrap.

Oh good, not I'm flailing, we just need to figure what I'm flailing like, like a flail? Like a whirling dervish or just like a pointless conversation???
 
Let's say you were a grand juror who was presented with evidence like this........

The Defendant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

11. The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.
In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:

a. The Defendant's Vice President—who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations—told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.

b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department—appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes—told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.

c. The Director of National Intelligence—the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security—disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.

d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA")—whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack—joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director—whom the Defendant had appointed—announced publicly that election security experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.

e. Senior White House attorneys—selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice—informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.


Or in the classified docs case, let's say you were shown a copy of the subpoena trump did not comply with. Demanding the return of classified materials in trump's possession he had taken when he left office. It was an undeniable violation of black letter law.
How do you maintain fidelity to your oath as a grand juror and not vote to indict?
1. If you look at the total votes for the last several elections the 2020 election stands out as two standard deviations above the norm. Did Trump prove that there was election fraud? No.
Did France stop mail-in ballots due to the ease of election fraud? Yes
I would not indict grand jurors, but I would make a new Law that grand juries had to be comprised of 4-Republicans, 4-Democrats, and 4-Independents. DC Grand Juries are typically comprised of all democrats

2. The classified docs case was exactly like Biden's classified docs case, Biden's case was even worse since he had to steal the documents, Biden was not indicted, neither should Trump have been. The classified documents should have been collected from MAL and that would have been that.
 
I think those who were involved in the kangaroo courts should be worried.
You folks keep making the same allegations with any proof whatsoever. Your position appears to be any legal proceeding involving trump's prosecution is by its nature illegitimate. But all you can point to in a material sense to explain why that is are trump's accusations.
 
1. If you look at the total votes for the last several elections the 2020 election stands out as two standard deviations above the norm. Did Trump prove that there was election fraud? No.
Did France stop mail-in ballots due to the ease of election fraud? Yes
I would not indict grand jurors, but I would make a new Law that grand juries had to be comprised of 4-Republicans, 4-Democrats, and 4-Independents. DC Grand Juries are typically comprised of all democrats

2. The classified docs case was exactly like Biden's classified docs case, Biden's case was even worse since he had to steal the documents, Biden was not indicted, neither should Trump have been. The classified documents should have been collected from MAL and that would have been that.
Your vague allegations of impropriety in point 1. in no way dispute the evidence of multiple, illegal conspiracies Smith presented to the grand jury. TWICE, I might add, since he went back a second time to a second grand jury following trump's court's fabricated immunity ruling.

The classified docs case stands on its own. Specious comparisons to Biden's case are irrelevant. trump violated a subpoena for the return of classified material. He broke the law, leaving grand jurors no choice but to vote to indict.
 
Your vague allegations of impropriety in point 1. in no way dispute the evidence of multiple, illegal conspiracies Smith presented to the grand jury. TWICE, I might add, since he went back a second time to a second grand jury following trump's court's fabricated immunity ruling.

The classified docs case stands on its own. Specious comparisons to Biden's case are irrelevant. trump violated a subpoena for the return of classified material. He broke the law, leaving grand jurors no choice but to vote to indict.
1. Since the voter fraud allegations didn't get their day in court we won't know the outcome until the Trump DOJ does a complete investigation. If they prove no voter fraud happened than that answers the suspicion/allegations. The trial also would have answered the indictments point by point. Innocent until proven guilty still applies.

2. Bill Barr said that the classified docs case was the most serious facing Trump. Biden stole classified docs but was not indicted, that is not a specious argument, it is a FACT. Did Trump declassify the docs he had? He had that authority. Did the FBI have access to the docs and could have collected them? Yep, if you follow the entire timeline. No point debating the past, the future is a much hotter topic.
 
the grand jurors trumples don't like talking about should be worried? They were an essential cog in our system of justice that came to conclusions at odds with Baby Donald's hollow pleas of innocence. Making it necessary to demonize them. Will they be on Bondi's list to pay a price for performing their civic duty?
No. They’ll just be laughed at like your posts are.
 
Because discrediting the grand juries who indicted trump is essential to the argument he was mistreated, many have tried to disparage their work due to the heavy concentration of Dems living in DC.

Doing so allows trumples to avoid talking about the evidence presented to it. The same way discrediting Smith as biased allows trumples to avoid examining the evidence he revealed.

Which is why trumples have not read the indictment.
 
Since the voter fraud allegations didn't get their day in court
They did. Your false narrative is an absurd relic with no basis in truth. The Kraken had every opportunity to make a factual case to back up their assertions. They couldn't.
 
Biden stole classified docs but was not indicted, that is not a specious argument, it is a FACT.
Yes, it's a fact, though we can argue about your fatuous characterization he stole them. The point being Biden's case, with it's vastly different circumstances, has no relevance to trump's illegal refusal to comply with a subpoena.
 
the grand jurors trumples don't like talking about should be worried? They were an essential cog in our system of justice that came to conclusions at odds with Baby Donald's hollow pleas of innocence. Making it necessary to demonize them. Will they be on Bondi's list to pay a price for performing their civic duty?

You don't know how a Grand Jury works.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom