They havent even read the indictments. Its like reasoning with a bunch of chimps who have had their reasoning removed.
Which bit is wrong and why ?
Look at it from their perspective -- and I'm not kidding:
As a citizen lawyer you would know that. When are you going to read the indictments. ?
legalinsurrection.com
Its a shame for trump that the case isnt being heard by a klan coven.
Dopey, the crimes are laid out in the doc I provided for you to read..Here...more on why this is simply an excuse to drag Trump into a courtroom controlled by a democrat party, obama judge, with a democrat party jury.....the same kind of democrat party jury that ignored the law and found the democrats who murdered Emmet Till not guilty....
And now let’s assess the legal ramifications of this latest indictment. We have Professor William Jacobson from Cornell Law School to discuss what the four charges against Trump actually mean and what kind of evidence is needed to prove them.
----
The question is, is there a crime here? That’s what I think a lot of people are questioning.
A lot of what they’re complaining about, a lot of the indictment is constitutionally protected speech.
For better or worse, politicians are allowed to lie. That’s not a crime. Maybe a reason not to vote for them, but it’s not a crime. So it’s not really clear what is the actual crime that was committed here. And that’s something a judge is going have to rule on.
----
WAJ (02:36):
Well, I mean that’s the whole point. What was the disruption of Congress that took place? It was the riot. It wasn’t Trump talking to people in Georgia or making phone calls or going on TV. They don’t charge him with inciting the riot. And that’s a very key point.
A lot of people, and frankly my initial thought was when I saw the media reports, is he was being indicted for the January 6th riot, but he’s not, that’s actually not what the indictment says.
The indictment says he was trying to obstruct things by convincing people to create fake certificates that there were electors and things like that. But that is, that’s I think a major defect in the indictment.
I’m not saying the indictment’s going get thrown out, but my guess is that the prosecutors have the evidence, they claim they have, but it’s going be up to a judge and eventually a jury as to whether that’s actually a crime.
Trump DC Indictment – Where is the crime?
My interview about the Trump DC Indictment: 'let's go on the assumption they think they can prove these things, that the allegations were made in good faith. The question is, is there a crime here? That's what I think a lot of people are questioning.'
Total bullshit.
Trump indictment (Aug 1)
www.documentcloud.org
A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.
There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.
I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.
He thought that he was above the law.
I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.
America cannot afford not to prosecute.
Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.
Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.
The witnesses are republicans.
Is that a summary of trumps defence ?
Who cares.
