Why the Sudden Doubts about the Verdict?

[JoeMoma]

I disagreed then and I still do.



They might. That has no bearing on Trump's sleaziness.

Except, as it was with Clinton, sleaziness was not relevant.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why should a President be above the law?

He committed his crimes on that DA's turf.

If he actually shot someone one Fifth Avenue, would you say, "Well, that's just a local DA!"

What crimes?

You can't even name them.

 

[pknopp]

It's not the same...under DA's like Bragg...New York City has careened back into the lawless cess pool it was before Rudy fixed things.

I will note, when others complained under Trump about a corrupt system he called them SOB's.

Karma.

 

[pknopp]

Oh, so Trump should have kicked Fauci in the ass on camera to show everyone that he knew Fauci was committing fraud?

Yes. That's who he pretends to be.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes. That's who he pretends to be.

Hindsight is 20-20.

I'm sure if Trump knew then what we all know now he would have sent the little shit to Afghanistan.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump's biggest mistake during Covid was trusting that sleazy little piece of shit! It was a mistake that was made by MOST of the country!

No, his mistake was ignoring Fauci because he didn't want to rattle the markets.

Disbanding the Pandemic Response Team
Throwing out the pandemic response plan left by Obama
Not replenshing stockpiles of medical supplies.
Withdrawing from the WHO
Closing the CDC office in Beijing
Telling people to inject bleach
Telling people it would clear up by Easter
Telling people it was "the Democrat's New Hoax".
Telling people to take quack cures like Hydrochloroquinine

 

[Cellblock2429]

Guilty or not, he is and always still will be a sleazeball.

/——/ A sleezeball like Hunter Biden or more like his father?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

What is it about this man that makes you think it's fair to abuse his constitutional rights, subject him to improper search and seizures, punish him in the most extreme manner imaginable, short of putting a bullet in the back of his head?

What is it about you that makes you think like such an

None of what you assert is happening. Again, your arguments are all political. A NYC DA assembled a grand jury of his peers, they reviewed the evidence, and THEY returned the indictment. He was granted a speedy trial. Would have been speedier had he not stalled but that is his right. A jury of his peers was selected, and yes, he got his discovery, the evidence was read against him. and he got to present a defense. Not sure what you believe he is being punished constitutionally for...or where his Constitutional rights were violated. He got his day in court.

Again, answer my central questions.

What..is..it..about..this..man?

 

[mudwhistle]

None of what you assert is happening. Again, your arguments are all political. A NYC DA assembled a grand jury of his peers, they reviewed the evidence, and THEY returned the indictment. He was granted a speedy trial. Would have been speedier had he not stalled but that is his right. A jury of his peers was selected, and yes, he got his discovery, the evidence was read against him. and he got to present a defense. Not sure what you believe he is being punished constitutionally for...or where his Constitutional rights were violated. He got his day in court.

Again, answer my central questions.

What..is..it..about..this..man?

• Those people on that jury don't represent his peers.
• The Grand Jury was denied any exculpatory evidence to be introduced into evidence, even though the DA's office knew of it's existence.
• His rights to mount a decent defense has been prevented by an activist judge who is being paid to convict Trump regardless of the evidence.
• His home was broken into and his personal property stolen by the FBI during the search.
• The crimes he's accused of are felonies but they aren't listed in the indictment.
• This is a criminal trial yet the judge thinks he can get away with treating it like a civil trial,.

Any questions?

 

[SavannahMann]

I don’t accept the trial in the first place.

Putting a political opponent on trial for a ginned up felony with no reliable evidence and no particular crime is not something anyone should respect.

So why should I agree to accept a not guilty verdict? What if we have reason to suspect that Trump intimidated or bought off jurors? Why not go that route?

 

[Blaster]

What is the crime?

 

[mudwhistle]

So why should I agree to accept a not guilty verdict? What if we have reason to suspect that Trump intimidated or bought off jurors? Why not go that route?

Do you have any proof.?

What if monkeys flew out of Trump's butt. Should we all put on our Ruby Slippers and say "There's No Place Like Home"?

 

[mudwhistle]

What is the crime?

Running for POTUS while being a Republican.

Being white and straight.

Take your pick.

 

[pknopp]

/——/ A sleezeball like Hunter Biden or more like his father?

Sure.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

• Those people on that jury don't represent his peers.

They most certainly do. All professionals.

• The Grand Jury was denied any exculpatory evidence to be introduced into evidence, even though the DA's office knew of it's existence.

No..they weren't.

• His rights to mount a decent defense has been prevented by an activist judge who is being paid to convict Trump regardless of the evidence.

He got his defense. It's not the rest of the world's problem he doesn't pay his bills and can only afford ambulance chasers.

• His home was broken into and his personal property stolen by the FBI during the search.

He was served a search warrant. He knew they were coming. He and his family got to watch on video (they weren't even on the property) as the FBI made their search. You or I would not have been afforded that luxury.

• The crimes he's accused of are felonies but they aren't listed in the indictment.

Uh....falsification of business records seems to be at the forefront.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

• This is a criminal trial yet the judge thinks he can get away with treating it like a civil trial,.

This is a criminal trial. Unlike E. Jean Carroll's (civil) lawsuit, there have been no judgements handed down. Evidence has been presented to a jury of his peers. They will decide his fate.

Any questions?

No, there are no questions. All constitutional requirements have been satisfied.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So why should I agree to accept a not guilty verdict?

You should not. Reread the OP. I called such mealy mouth nonsense moral cowardice.

What if we have reason to suspect that Trump intimidated or bought off jurors? Why not go that route?

Now you're talking! Some of your fellow TDS suffers are slipping. They are the ones saying they will accept the verdict.

 

[mudwhistle]

They most certainly do. All professionals.

No..they weren't.

He got his defense. It's not the rest of the world's problem he doesn't pay his bills and can only afford ambulance chasers.

He was served a search warrant. He knew they were coming. He and his family got to watch on video (they weren't even on the property) as the FBI made their search. You or I would not have been afforded that luxury.

Uh....falsification of business records seems to be at the forefront.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

This is a criminal trial. Unlike E. Jean Carroll's (civil) lawsuit, there have been no judgements handed down. Evidence has been presented to a jury of his peers. They will decide his fate.


No, there are no questions. All constitutional requirements have been satisfied.

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t accept the trial in the first place.

Putting a political opponent on trial for a ginned up felony with no reliable evidence and no particular crime is not something anyone should respect.

Good thing no one did that, then.

The crime is pretty clear to me. He committed fraud to win an election.

 

[JoeB131]

What crimes?

You can't even name them.

34 counts of filing false business documents. Try to keep up, stupid.

 

[mudwhistle]

They most certainly do. All professionals.

No..they weren't.

He got his defense. It's not the rest of the world's problem he doesn't pay his bills and can only afford ambulance chasers.

He was served a search warrant. He knew they were coming. He and his family got to watch on video (they weren't even on the property) as the FBI made their search. You or I would not have been afforded that luxury.

Uh....falsification of business records seems to be at the forefront.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

This is a criminal trial. Unlike E. Jean Carroll's (civil) lawsuit, there have been no judgements handed down. Evidence has been presented to a jury of his peers. They will decide his fate.


No, there are no questions. All constitutional requirements have been satisfied.

This post proves how little you know about the law.

Number one issue is that the DA office withheld evidence that they knew about that was exculpatory before the Grand Jury.

Trump wasn't served a search warrant because he wasn't there at the time. During the search the FBI stole various personal items that were not listed in the search warrant, ie travel documents and medical records. They had to return these items or face a lawsuit.

The judge threw out anything that proves that Trump did not break the law. He literally lost it and threw out one of the Defense's primary witnesses because his testimony was devastating to the DA's case.

And finally, this judge wants to give instructions to the jury that treats a criminal trial like a civil matter. The level you need to get a conviction in a criminal trial hasn't been met, so he's going to instruct the jury to follow their conscience and vote guilty even if the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In summation, the entire process has been corrupted due the illegal acts of the DA's office and the judge himself. Not to mention the fact that this judge was supposed to be selected randomly, but he's been picked to conduct every trial that Trump and his associates have been involved in. His daughter has also illegally benefited off of this trial which should have led to his recusal.