Donald Trump claims he will be arrested Tuesday in Manhattan probe, calls for protests

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Paging @EternalShinyAndChrome

I believe Eternal had some thoughts here

I did? Refresh my memory.  What exactly were my thoughts?

[thegeneral 2,996]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I did? Refresh my memory.  What exactly were my thoughts?

I think it was you. My bad if it wasn’t…but the premise was Trump was just making a statement not actually asking GA to do this IIRC

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

13 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think it was you. My bad if it wasn’t…but the premise was Trump was just making a statement not actually asking GA to do this IIRC

I don't think that was me.

[thegeneral 2,996]

42 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I don't think that was me.

My bad. Someone made this argument in one of these threads.

What is your opinion of the GA case?

[Mark Davis 346]

14 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sorry I was on a plane flight all day so I was unable to reply to this until now. 

I may have misunderstood your previous post; I thought you were talking about jurors. Now you’re talking about prosecutors, Of course prosecutors may act with a political motive. But that doesn’t mean jurors will go along with it.

Let’s take the case of George Zimmerman. I believe, personally, that he probably murdered Trayvon Martin. But there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that, so if I had been on that jury I would have voted to acquit. Now the truth is the prosecution knew they didn’t have the evidence to prove Zimmerman’s guilt, but they were pressured into indicting him anyhow. The pressure came from an angry liberal mob. He was acquitted; the system worked. 

Now let’s take Hillary Clinton. An angry conservative mob demanded that she be indicted. Trump promised to do it, but his Justice Department could not find enough evidence to charge her. Once again the system worked, better than in the Zimmerman case, because this time we didn’t even have to go through a sham trial. 

So my point is most of the time the system works. Not always. Poor people, especially minorities, get the shaft. Rich celebrities can sometimes get away with the worst of crimes. But overall jurors are fair. So back to Trump: if the evidence is weak he will be acquitted. We’ll have to see how strong the evidence is. 

I meant it to mean both, to a greater extent the partisan DA's, but to a lesser extent the jurors as well.  It's going to be harder to get fair trials for political figures in what I'd deem hostile jurisdictions.  I don't think it's far fetched to envision the same case against someone like Trump or Hunter Biden (insert any D figure you want here) getting two differing verdicts in two different jurisdictions based on jury pool.  That difference always existed to some extent, but I think it's way more likely and even inevitable today.  That may be cynical, or even believing the worst in people, but I've seen little reason to believe otherwise over the past few years.  What's worse, the trend is continuing into that spiral.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,002]

The NY Times and many other leftist outlets claim this isn’t a politically motivated prosecution. They’ll just say anything. 

[thegeneral 2,996]

13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The NY Times and many other leftist outlets claim this isn’t a politically motivated prosecution. They’ll just say anything. 

“I HAVE GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY, & PERHAPS EVEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.”

-Donald J Trump..last week

[RLLD 4,154]

This just proves one thing.  Trump is effectively our second black president.

[Engorgeous George 2,171]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

This just proves one thing.  Trump is effectively our second black president.

I thought there was agreement Clinto was our first, and obama our second.  This would make Trump no better than #3 if Jefferson's case of jungle fever does not count.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,002]

It wasn’t long ago that the left spoke out against law enforcement overreach. Now they love it. 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It wasn’t long ago that the left spoke out against law enforcement overreach. Now they love it. 

Why is this overreach? 

[RLLD 4,154]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It wasn’t long ago that the left spoke out against law enforcement overreach. Now they love it. 

Should it arise that anyone not within the liberal cult is harmed, that is a "good".  It is only bad then people of a certainly identity are ever held to account.  This is the new liberal form of "justice"

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Should it arise that anyone not within the liberal cult is harmed, that is a "good".  It is only bad then people of a certainly identity are ever held to account.  This is the new liberal form of "justice"

If he’s truly guilty of a felony, wouldn’t this (his indictment) be a good for you as well? 

[thegeneral 2,996]

In the cult

“They’re in the cult. And I know what it’s like to be in the cult,” said Cohen. “It’s time to wash your eyes and to see exactly who Donald Trump is. It’s time to start to listen to the truth,” he said of the former president’s supporters.”

 

[RLLD 4,154]

8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If he’s truly guilty of a felony, wouldn’t this (his indictment) be a good for you as well? 

IF it were being properly adjudicated absolutely.  

But given this is a federal crime, well past its staute of limitations, I would infer that someone such as yourself would view this move as being juducial impropriety. Imagine this were happening to Obama, that would be bad woundl't it? I think it would. 

If object to how the justice system treats AA's ( and not minorities overall who seem to magically escape this spectral racism) then this action should bother you. Right now it is weaponized against the person you dislike.

But....what if a conservative DA uses this as a precedent for going after an AA later?  That would be wrong, but this move is typical of liberals.....it scratches an itch without any regard for the long term consequences.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,002]

Liberals still claiming this isn’t political.  

[thegeneral 2,996]

Will Trump take the stand? Probably not. Too guilty.

[RLLD 4,154]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Will Trump take the stand? Probably not. Too guilty.

Noted. In any instance where the accused does not take the stand they are then guilty.  This new version of justice is pretty scary stuff. 

[TheNewGirl 1,387]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

That would be wrong, but this move is typical of liberals.....it scratches an itch without any regard for the long term consequences.

This. 

It just seems like the people wanting him to go to prison aren't thinking about the precedent this sets for current/previous Presidents. 

[TheNewGirl 1,387]

6 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Will Trump take the stand? Probably not. Too guilty.

The defendant taking the stand in ANY case is a risky move. 

[thegeneral 2,996]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Noted. In any instance where the accused does not take the stand they are then guilty.  This new version of justice is pretty scary stuff. 

Oops

Hillary testified for hours on Benghazi. I get it if Trump is too scared he’ll mess up. 

[thegeneral 2,996]

2 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

This. 

It just seems like the people wanting him to go to prison aren't thinking about the precedent this sets for current/previous Presidents. 

Being held accountable, don’t break the law, etc are the precedents I am looking for.

[RLLD 4,154]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Oops

Hillary testified for hours on Benghazi. I get it if Trump is too scared he’ll mess up. 

Fascinating.   What an odd example to use.  When there are so many AA's in jail right now, did THEY take the stand?  

So then, ANYONE who testifies is presumed innocent and ANYONE who does not is presumed guilty....according to your "logic" and you stand behind that? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,002]

The Benghazi hearings weren’t hearings? Hillary testified after being arrested? How did that get by us? 

[TheNewGirl 1,387]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Being held accountable, don’t break the law, etc are the precedents I am looking for.

Good luck with that. 

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,250]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

In the cult

“They’re in the cult. And I know what it’s like to be in the cult,” said Cohen. “It’s time to wash your eyes and to see exactly who Donald Trump is. It’s time to start to listen to the truth,” he said of the former president’s supporters.”

 

liberals are an even bigger cult

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,250]

if you blow up kids no jail

if you lie under oath no jail

if you commit quid pro joe no investigation

if you stage an insurrection but its to cut d1cks off kids no jail

if your attorney pays off a hooker to shut up eND OF THE WORLDS

[thegeneral 2,996]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Fascinating.   What an odd example to use.  When there are so many AA's in jail right now, did THEY take the stand?  

So then, ANYONE who testifies is presumed innocent and ANYONE who does not is presumed guilty....according to your "logic" and you stand behind that? 

I’m just going by this guy’s words. Fascinating!

[Engorgeous George 2,171]

13 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Will Trump take the stand? Probably not. Too guilty.

His propensity to speak, shall we say, imaginatively, would be a nightmare for his attorney.  Trump could be well on the way to an acquittal and by the time he is done be found guilty, in contempt, and subkject to perjury along with several new counts for a subsequent prosecution.  He is an attorney's nightmare.  A client that will not shut up.  One who thinks his oratory will save the day.  It never does.

[thegeneral 2,996]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

liberals are an even bigger cult

Did you just go “I know you are but what am I”

[thegeneral 2,996]

5 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Good luck with that. 

Don’t be scared. These are just people.

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

IF it were being properly adjudicated absolutely.  

But given this is a federal crime, well past its staute of limitations, I would infer that someone such as yourself would view this move as being juducial impropriety. Imagine this were happening to Obama, that would be bad woundl't it? I think it would. 

If object to how the justice system treats AA's ( and not minorities overall who seem to magically escape this spectral racism) then this action should bother you. Right now it is weaponized against the person you dislike.

But....what if a conservative DA uses this as a precedent for going after an AA later?  That would be wrong, but this move is typical of liberals.....it scratches an itch without any regard for the long term consequences.

If what you suggest is true it WOULD bother me greatly. But at this moment I have no idea if any of it is true because I haven’t heard the indictment and neither have you. Here’s what I do know: Cyrus Vance, the previous DA was asked yesterday why he didn’t prosecute Trump for this stuff, and he said that he intended to buy that the Justice Department at the time asked him not to because they were also pursuing it. That indicates to me that the question of whether or not this is a federal crime is an open one and very much in the air. We will know more tomorrow, hopefully. 

[Engorgeous George 2,171]

12 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Did you just go “I know you are but what am I”

I expect from Trump a modified Chewbaca defense with a liberal dose of Biden and Hilary are so what am I.

[RLLD 4,154]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

I’m just going by this guy’s words. Fascinating!

How convenient.  You suggest guilt and innocence based ont he perversion of a core tenent of our judicial system, and then just shrug it away when called out on it.

Thankfully, there are few people like you entering the legal profession; though clearly there are some.  I bet you feel that AA's are being unfairly treated by our legal system, or do you feel that way?

[RLLD 4,154]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If what you suggest is true it WOULD bother me greatly. But at this moment I have no idea if any of it is true because I haven’t heard the indictment and neither have you. Here’s what I do know: Cyrus Vance, the previous DA was asked yesterday why he didn’t prosecute Trump for this stuff, and he said that he intended to buy that the Justice Department at the time asked him not to because they were also pursuing it. That indicates to me that the question of whether or not this is a federal crime is an open one and very much in the air. We will know more tomorrow, hopefully. 

And it should bother you, because it would be wrong.  And it is not "right" simply because it is happening to Trump, or to a white guy, or a rich guy.   The legal system relies on precedent. And this precedent could be turned back on those you think are being wronged.  There is smart and there is not smart, and everything about this move is not smart.

This move is pointedly political in every way, and that is probem A.  Further, the move would setup some rather untintended negative outcomes later and hurt a ton of people with less resources than a Donald Trump; who frankly will be able to walk away from this due to those resources.

So in supporting this, just know, you are in the end going to likely hurt a fair nuber of people you pretend to defend and support. 

Moreover, this will not work.....the goal here is to mar Trump politically, the already know this is a loser in court..... so....all they are doing is making the guy look ever more like the martyr that many people feel they are.....

Democrats have to stop weaponizing everything under the sun to attack this guy.

[thegeneral 2,996]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

How convenient.  You suggest guilt and innocence based ont he perversion of a core tenent of our judicial system, and then just shrug it away when called out on it.

Thankfully, there are few people like you entering the legal profession; though clearly there are some.  I bet you feel that AA's are being unfairly treated by our legal system, or do you feel that way?

If a guy talks about only gully people and mobsters take the 5th, don’t testify, then when given the chance doesn't himself well let’s call a spade a spade. He’s a betch.

He has the legal right to do so though…but he’s still a betch.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,002]

Remember all the clinging to “the law” you liberals have been doing. Hold tight to it.  You own it now. 

[MDC 7,171]

Is anyone other than Trump denying Trump did it?  Or is the line that he did but it’s selective prosecution / bias?

[Strike 5,276]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Is anyone other than Trump denying Trump did it?  Or is the line that he did but it’s selective prosecution / bias?

Did what?

[RLLD 4,154]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

If a guy talks about only gully people and mobsters take the 5th, don’t testify, then when given the chance doesn't himself well let’s call a spade a spade. He’s a betch.

He has the legal right to do so though…but he’s still a betch.

Good to know.  I surmise that if the system were used against you in this manner you might not feel the same way.