ADVERTISEMENT

*****OFFICIAL TRUMP CRIMINAL TRIAL THREAD*****

I hope he does. Most normal people think he's being persecuted frankly.

I mean the guy made a poster and coffee mugs from his mug shot. Do you think he cares about Biden using a few court room photos?
Your “normal” bias might need to be recalibrated. Most normal people think he is a crook who deserves prosecution. The polls tell that story convincingly.

I don’t know a single moderate independent who thinks Trump is being prosecuted without cause.
 
Gotta show the whole list, yo...

Jenna Ellis… “ Guilty Your Honor!
Kenneth Cheseboro… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Sydney Powell… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Michael Cohen… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Allen Weiselberg… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Rick Gates… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Paul Manafort… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
George Papadopoulis… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Roger Stone… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Michael Flynn… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
George Nader… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Elliot Broidy… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Steve Brannon… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Chris Collins… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Sam Patten… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Imaaz Zuberi… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
The Trump Corp… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Trump Payroll Corp… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Trump Foundation… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
Trump University… “ Guilty Your Honor!”
DONALD TRUMP… *trial begins*
 
arrested-development-david-cross.gif
 
I just had a republican family member, who doesn’t miss a day of right wing radio, tell me that these charges are a sham, they will be thrown out by a higher court and the democrats just want to be able to call him a convicted felon before the election.

Person also said there was a far stronger case against Hillary in 2016 for paying for a dossier.

I got all of this for mentioning that Mar-a-Lardo fell asleep in court today after all the times he called Biden, Sleepy Joe
 
sure...to the "both sides" idiots who think there is no difference between hunter's laptop allegations on social media and actually presenting evidence in criminal court...its all the same
Actually, the stuff that occurs in federal proceedings, whether they involve Hunter or Donald, is ginormously more trustworthy than the things that are occurring in state proceedings. And last I checked, Hunter has in fact been indicted (albeit not on the wilder types of things suggested), has he not? As I said, these are now the rules of politics. Indeed, when you hear clamoring for an AG to appoint a special counsel of one sort or another, the clamoring is not in fact regarding whether the AG would otherwise be political in the matter. Rather, it's because the appointed counsel pretty much knows that they have to produce an indictment. A strange irony indeed.
 
Actually, the stuff that occurs in federal proceedings, whether they involve Hunter or Donald, is ginormously more trustworthy than the things that are occurring in state proceedings. And last I checked, Hunter has in fact been indicted (albeit not on the wilder types of things suggested), has he not? As I said, these are now the rules of politics. Indeed, when you hear clamoring for an AG to appoint a special counsel of one sort or another, the clamoring is not in fact regarding whether the AG would otherwise be political in the matter. Rather, it's because the appointed counsel pretty much knows that they have to produce an indictment. A strange irony indeed.
and i'm saying that what's happening to trump is not new

investigations as poltiical weapons have been happening for decades...and when you have a politician (or someone close to a politician) flagrantly break the law, they get prosecuted

this isn't unfair or something to be sad about .... if politicians break the law - whether that's tax fraud or falsifying business records - they should be prosecuted
 
Your “normal” bias might need to be recalibrated. Most normal people think he is a crook who deserves prosecution. The polls tell that story convincingly.

I don’t know a single moderate independent who thinks Trump is being prosecuted without cause.
Perhaps you dont. I am not surprised.

Recall, or learn, the old story of New York film critic Pauline Kael who famously commented, after the 1972 Presidential election, ‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.'”
 
Trump's getting indicted. No two ways about that. Prosecutors have signed checks by Trump to Cohen to pay Stormy off and proof that he later claimed these were legal fees. He screwed on that.

As for anything campaign related, he probably skates. Way to hard to prove that Donny try to kill the cheating story for his campaign instead of his personal life.
 
Trump's getting indicted. No two ways about that. Prosecutors have signed checks by Trump to Cohen to pay Stormy off and proof that he later claimed these were legal fees. He screwed on that.

As for anything campaign related, he probably skates. Way to hard to prove that Donny try to kill the cheating story for his campaign instead of his personal life.
Do you know what indicted means? Maybe Im confused as to your comments so pardon me if I misunderstand.

He's already been indicted, hence the trial....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
I mean, sure it is. I'm not sure how one can look at the totality and really think otherwise if one were being honest.

But so what? The rules by which the game is played have changed. Both sides take turns crossing lines, and this is just another line that has been crossed. It is what it is, and it is and will be the new reality of modern politics, where impeachments are doled out like candy (or at least were, as now we seem to be more focused on the front end). Candidates just have to deal with it.
Do you not think Trump should’ve been impeached?

I’m 50/50 on the second one, but the first was a no-brainer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
What continually amazes me about the Democrats is their unwillingness to just pound away at Trump for what a complete sleazeball he is, and what that sleaziness also tells us about the Republican party.

Just amazing. Particularly since attacks on character and scandal mongering are a main, or the main focus of Republicans when running campaigns against Democrats.
 
Last edited:
It might be hard to seat a jury, if the potential jurors are being honest. Trump would definitely not be able to get a jury from this forum.

Juror question 21.
A. Do you have any political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or opinions which might prevent you from following the Court's instructions on the law or which might slant your approach to this case?
B. Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that would interfere with your ability to render a verdict in this criminal case?

26. Can you give us an assurance that you will be fair and impartial and not base your decision in this case upon a bias or prejudice in favor of or against a person who may appear in this trial, on account of that person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation or political views?

27. Can you promise to guard against allowing stereotypes or attitudes about individuals or about groups of people, referred to as an implicit bias, influence your decision?

29.
G. Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email listserv run by or on behalf of any anti-Trump group or organization?
H. Do you currently follow any anti-Trump group or organization on any social media site, or have you done so in the past?

33. Can you give us your assurance that you will decide this case solely on the evidence you see and hear in this courtroom and the law as the judge gives it?

37. Do you have any opinions about the legal limits governing political contributions?


38. Can you promise to set aside anything you may have heard or read about this case and render your verdict based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law as given to you by the judge?

Of course there are also quite a few questions of similar nature to exclude Trump supporters, of which there aren't very many of those here.

He only needs 1 of 12 to side with him. That's 8%. He got 24% of the NYC vote in 2020. The odds are well in his favor.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: EasyHawk
Based on what we know of this judge and his family I would be shocked to see any real justice here. Corruption runs deep.
 
He only needs 1 of 12 to side with him. That's 8%. He got 24% of the NYC vote in 2020. The odds are well in his favor.
Yeah, but there were a lot of questions on the jury questionaire aimed at Trump supporters as well, so if they were being honest, they would also be disqualified.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT