Jump to content
Hardcore troubadour

Trump INDICTED

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

He wants my family murdered by illegal immigrants. He’s a real winner. 

Oh nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horseman said:

Good one!  Now do your little dance. 

 

🤣🤣🤣

Put your money where your mouth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

More lies here, but no bother.  Once you tell someone that you hope their kids get raped, you lose any moral high ground.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I did say that the two were in a sexual relationship, which is fact, to dispute the idea that it was a random attack by someone posing as a woman.  I also facetiously said she may have been in on it.

 

None of this is any justification for you saying you want my kids to be raped.

“Don’t be so literal” “I was just kidding” “I was being facetious”. This Fockin guy. What he says really isn’t what he said, once again. Nice friend you got  there Old Maid. Go back to your safe space and take this POS with you.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Put your money where your mouth is.

Too busy with your tranny threads to check out the wagering threads?  Horseman is a legend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Too busy with your tranny threads to check out the wagering threads?  Horseman is a legend.  

That alias must be the one with a sack 😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

I did say that the two were in a sexual relationship, which is fact, to dispute the idea that it was a random attack by someone posing as a woman.  I also facetiously said she may have been in on it. None of this is any justification for you saying you want my kids to be raped.

 

 

"Different argument.

And yes, this story IS all about trannies.  Obama said "Let the trannies use whatever bathroom they want", Conservatives cried "But what about my daughter getting raped?"

Well now 10 years later, conservatives are all "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!"

That's all it is.  Nobody gives a fock about the girl.  You know how many chicks were raped in bathrooms between now and then?  Probably a lot.  I know Casual Observer has raped hundreds, even some dudes.

But thats my point, this is all political.  I feel bad for the girl being used as a pawn, unless she's in on it too.  You know some girls actually do cry rape without being raped...  And as long as the accused is a dude that doesn't wear a dress, conservatives don't care."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

I did say that the two were in a sexual relationship, which is fact, to dispute the idea that it was a random attack by someone posing as a woman.  I also facetiously said she may have been in on it. None of this is any justification for you saying you want my kids to be raped.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

I did say that the two were in a sexual relationship, which is fact, to dispute the idea that it was a random attack by someone posing as a woman.  I also facetiously said she may have been in on it. None of this is any justification for you saying you want my kids to be raped.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW: David Shafer, one of the 19 defendants charged with Trump in GA, has posted a transcript of the Dec. 14, 2020 meeting of the false GOP electors as part of a court action.

It shows Trump campaign attorney Ray Smith's advice to the group.

Here is the transcript, now known as: EXHIBIT C.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, thegeneral said:

That alias must be the one with a sack 😂

God knows you don't have a sack. No balls at all peanut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

God knows you don't have a sack. No balls at all peanut. 

You keep my balls out of your mouth you sick fock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer, so I hope one shows up and chimes in on some of these cases.

 

Right now in Georgia, a bunch of these defendants are trying to have their cases moved to federal court. 

The judge handling efforts by Trump's codefendants to remove their cases to federal court gives Fani Willis until tomorrow at 3pm to respond to Jeff Clark's motion to stay the proceedings. He won't permit Clark to reply.

Man... this is one massive quagmire we're about to go through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

You keep my balls out of your mouth you sick fock!

Easy. You don't have any. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Easy. You don't have any. 

Stop obsessing about my body, Peefoam. No means no, pal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Stop obsessing about my body, Peefoam. No means no, pal!

generalurineslurper. Have a good night slurping your boyfriend's pee all night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

generalurineslurper. Have a good night slurping your boyfriend's pee all night.

What wit you possess 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, (Carlos) De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment,” the filing said.

I just don't think these two are willing to go to prison for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dozer FBG said:

I'm no lawyer, so I hope one shows up and chimes in on some of these cases.

 

Right now in Georgia, a bunch of these defendants are trying to have their cases moved to federal court. 

The judge handling efforts by Trump's codefendants to remove their cases to federal court gives Fani Willis until tomorrow at 3pm to respond to Jeff Clark's motion to stay the proceedings. He won't permit Clark to reply.

Man... this is one massive quagmire we're about to go through.

 

I’m a fake lawyer so what’s your question? I highly doubt the GA case gets moved to federal court, that would basically be a violation of state sovereignty imo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’m a fake lawyer so what’s your question? I highly doubt the GA case gets moved to federal court, that would basically be a violation of state sovereignty imo 

Hey IGW! I seem to get in over my head pretty quickly on these legal matters, investigations, etc. As I try to avoid standard media, (hardly possible), I end up reading a lot of legal documents that get released. Just nice to have lawyers around to let us know what is important, what is just delay, that kind of thing.

I guess if I had a question it would be do you think any of these cases will come to a trial before the next presidential election? Is there enough time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dozer FBG said:

Hey IGW! I seem to get in over my head pretty quickly on these legal matters, investigations, etc. As I try to avoid standard media, (hardly possible), I end up reading a lot of legal documents that get released. Just nice to have lawyers around to let us know what is important, what is just delay, that kind of thing.

I guess if I had a question it would be do you think any of these cases will come to a trial before the next presidential election? Is there enough time?

Georgia case seemingly impossible with the number of defendants.

Documents case, maybe.

Federal January 6 case, I doubt it given the complexity of the case, but I suppose it’s possible.

New York case, I would think yes that could happen.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dozer FBG said:

I'm no lawyer, so I hope one shows up and chimes in on some of these cases.

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 19–465. Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020

“A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. … Electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


U.S. Supreme Court Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)

No. 649 Argued March 31, 1952 Decided April 3, 1952

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/214/


*****

Pennsylvania - No faithless elector laws

Georgia - No faithless elector laws

Michigan - Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector (Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.47 )

Arizona - Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector (Ariz. Rev. Stat § 16-212 )

Wisconsin - Vote counted as cast (Wis. Stat. § 7.75(2) )

Nevada - Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 298.075(2) )

New Mexico - Vote counted as cast (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-15-9 )

- New Mexico is the only state that has some form of legal penalty on this list for electors whom refuse to vote as pledged.

*****

The states in dispute are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico.

The United States Constitution does not cover the "Electoral College" in depth and never specifically does so by name. Article II and the 23rd Amendment are about logistics. The 12th Amendment defers specific breakdown of electors to state legislatures. ( SCOTUS reaffirms this in Chiafalo, but the distinction still remains that this is a matter for state legislatures to hash out for themselves in the details and previous precedents have only resulted in "fines" i.e. Colin Powell/Hillary Clinton) 

Two of the states mentioned have no laws regarding faithless electors. Three of the states mentioned allow some mechanism to replace electors in the case of faithless electors. Again, discretion is given to each respective state. The two states that could drive serious problems here are Wisconsin and New Mexico, but again, there would a require a deeper dive into their legislatures and election laws.

What are these "fake documents to change electors" if you have states that have mechanisms to actually replace electors?

What exists as an "alternate/fake elector scheme" if you have states that have mechanisms to actually replace electors?

The faithless elector issue, which is a real complex legal discussion BEFORE TRUMP EVER ENTERED PROFESSIONAL POLITICS, is enough of a hedge that Trump can believe, in his own state of mind, that he won the election.

Here is the likely core argument John Eastman will make in his defense: The electors were not  "fake".  There is plenty of preexisting legal dispute over the matter of "faithless electors" to explore all practical avenues to ensure a "free and fair election"  The alternate electors were approached to cast their ballots or appealed to cast their ballots in order to prevent then sitting President Donald Trump from being disqualified by technicality in the event the mass of voter fraud lawsuits were successful. This dovetails back to W. Bush and Al Gore regarding Florida and the "Hanging Chads" in the 2000 general cycle. You cannot punish Eastman nor Trump for pursuing every legal avenue available.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning moron cultist.

The walls are closing in on your fat, orange, moron master.

Looks like you racist, inbred cockroaches will have to crawl back into whatever dark holes you crawled out of.

Love this for you idiots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

inbred cockroaches

That's a very racist statement that's CLEARLY pointed towards African Americans. You should probably stick you your HOMOPHOBIC side, you're much better at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, League Champion said:

That's a very racist statement that's CLEARLY pointed towards African Americans. You should probably stick you your HOMOPHOBIC side, you're much better at it. 

Racist?  The only time I've heard cockroach used as a derogatory slur is against you cultist idiots.  Because you're dirty, stupid, and like to eat chit like cockroaches do.

Love this for you morons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×