Trump's NY Election Interference Trial (Trial Adjourned Until Tuesday)

[BeachGuy23 512]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, nice dodge.  Everything that happened to Trump, that's in the media and in court, was/is Democrat driven.  There never would've been accusations of him being racist, misogynistic, or anything else splattered all over the MSM for months on end.  There never would've been a Steele Dossier and there never would've have a Russia Collusion diatribe.  You know this and you're trying to pretend it would've happened anyway.  Just stop.

Was it democratic driven when he defrauded his cultist "college" students and had to pay $25M?

How about when he stole from his fake charity?

There tons more.

What's it like being a cuck for an orange idiot who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

[BeachGuy23 512]

18 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

It doesn't matter guys, remember we have THE ROCK now!!!!!!!!

And the SAD thing is, cultist don't even have the ROCK.

They're just so very stupid they couldn't even understand what he said.

Cultist be dumb AF.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

2 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

And the SAD thing is, cultist don't even have the ROCK.

They're just so very stupid they couldn't even understand what he said.

Cultist be dumb AF.

You're so stupid you didn't even know I was being sarcastic and mocking your girl Worms 

[BeachGuy23 512]

Just now, iam90sbaby said:

You're so stupid you didn't even know I was being sarcastic and mocking your girl Worms 

No I actually did.

Note how I never referenced you.  

Burn boyo burn!

[Horseman 1,514]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah. Punish a kid. What did Trump do to you that was so bad, besides you being a bi-polar soft twat with little man’s disease? 

Ouch.   

[squistion 898]

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

I don't usually think of such things, but I would bet that @squistionhas fapped several times today to this thread.  He just seems so excited to finally see the mean orange man on trial...

 

[Dozer FBG 246]

59 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What I don't believe is that Trump planned on a bunch of rubes to take over the United States with flagpoles and pretend guillotines.

Hi Jerry,

Like you, I believe that many of the J6 defendants were rubes. And by rubes I mean gullible Americans who got swept up in a “stop the steal” frenzy, and followed others illegally into the Capitol.

 

But I wonder if you consider the defendants that were found guilty of Seditious conspiracy as rubes?

 

The guys with a plan, who were wearing body armor and in stack formation as they made their entry into the Capitol. Who had a quick reaction force in communication and ready to join the fray at a moment’s notice.

 

The defendants doing real time. Decades in the joint. Are you including those defendants in your classification of rubes?

[Fnord 1,141]

57 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I believe many things.

I believe that Trump wanted people to go to the Capitol and whoop it up bigly.  I believe that when they actually went into the Capitol, some part of Trump (maybe the biggliest) thought "hey look, they're storming the Capitol for me, they love me, I'm the greatest!"  Because he is a narcissistic doosh.  What I don't believe is that Trump planned on a bunch of rubes to take over the United States with flagpoles and pretend guillotines.

I further believe that there is no actual evidence tying him directly to such plans and actions, and as such, that the trial is unjust.

I believe that the fact that this unjust legal activity is happening to a former POTUS and current challenger to the establishment president are the kinds of things that happen in banana republics.

I believe that you, being an elite Leftist, think that all fans of Trump are "MAGA," which to you means racist homophobic mysoginistic neanderthal idiots.  As such, I believe that you and your kind do NOT believe that they could have acted on their own, because you are surprised that their brains can remember to breathe on their own, such people are so stupid.  As such, I believe that you are left to conclude that they acted on the tacit wishes of the evil orange man.

I'll stop for now.

You're reaching pretty hard here. Did you know that you're about the umpteenth guy here that has made grossly incorrect assumptions about me? I bring some of that on myself of course, but y'all LOVE to make sweeping general statements like the bolded with nothing but your assumptions to back it up. I believe literally NONE of that tripe.

I get it, ya gotta make sure that those calling out Fuhrer Trump are the enemy and they hate you, or else you may have to reckon with exactly how wrong you've been this whole time.

When I refer to MAGAMOOKS, I'm talking about the hardcore sycophants. The ones that would vote for him no matter what. You must have missed my post last week about talking politics with a bunch of biker Republicans and how insightful and enjoyable it was.

Keep your narrow labels off me. If you wanna know what I think, ask. Your assumptions will be wrong. The stark proof is above.

[jerryskids 5,212]

Just now, Dozer FBG said:

Hi Jerry,

Like you, I believe that many of the J6 defendants were rubes. And by rubes I mean gullible Americans who got swept up in a “stop the steal” frenzy, and followed others illegally into the Capitol.

 

But I wonder if you consider the defendants that were found guilty of Seditious conspiracy as rubes?

 

The guys with a plan, who were wearing body armor and in stack formation as they made their entry into the Capitol. Who had a quick reaction force in communication and ready to join the fray at a moment’s notice.

 

The defendants doing real time. Decades in the joint. Are you including those defendants in your classification of rubes?

No, not at all.  The people who were found guilty of those sorts of things should be punished under the law.  

My point is that I don't think Trump directed those people to do what they did (or the "rubes", as you call them, to do what they did).  I'm not saying you are saying otherwise, but I want to be clear on my point, since this is the Trump trial thread.   

[Fnord 1,141]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

My point is that I don't think Trump directed those people to do what they did (or the "rubes", as you call them, to do what they did).  I'm not saying you are saying otherwise, but I want to be clear on my point, since this is the Trump trial thread.   

You believe that neither Trump nor any of his advisors or other colorful folks in his coterie like Roger Stone and the rest of the "Willard War Room" crowd had any contact with or knowledge of the plans of the seditionists?

[thegeneral 1,417]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

No, not at all.  The people who were found guilty of those sorts of things should be punished under the law.  

My point is that I don't think Trump directed those people to do what they did (or the "rubes", as you call them, to do what they did).  I'm not saying you are saying otherwise, but I want to be clear on my point, since this is the Trump trial thread.   

This is the Trump banging the porn star thread and paying her off and how that all played out thread.

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

10 minutes ago, Fnord said:

You're reaching pretty hard here. Did you know that you're about the umpteenth guy here that has made grossly incorrect assumptions about me? I bring some of that on myself of course, but y'all LOVE to make sweeping general statements like the bolded with nothing but your assumptions to back it up. I believe literally NONE of that tripe.

I get it, ya gotta make sure that those calling out Fuhrer Trump are the enemy and they hate you, or else you may have to reckon with exactly how wrong you've been this whole time.

When I refer to MAGAMOOKS, I'm talking about the hardcore sycophants. The ones that would vote for him no matter what. You must have missed my post last week about talking politics with a bunch of biker Republicans and how insightful and enjoyable it was.

Keep your narrow labels off me. If you wanna know what I think, ask. Your assumptions will be wrong. The stark proof is above.

It's funny, I've said a bazillion times here that I'm not a fan of Trump.  Perhaps the "narcissistic doosh" phrase in the post you quoted was a clue?  Yet you accuse me of the very thing (well, opposite thing) that I accuse you of.

But before we get into that:  I hesitate to type long posts like I did, because folks will take what they perceive as the "weakest" part of it and respond to that only.  So, what do you think of my summary other than what you bolded?  What type of people do you think that Trump was dog-whistling to, to try to take over the United States with flagpoles and pocket knives, such that he should be on trial for that as the opposition candidate for president?

[BeachGuy23 512]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's funny, I've said a bazillion times here that I'm not a fan of Trump.  Perhaps the "narcissistic doosh" phrase in the post you quoted was a clue?  Yet you accuse me of the very thing (well, opposite thing) that I accuse you of.

But before we get into that:  I hesitate to type long posts like I did, because folks will take what they perceive as the "weakest" part of it and respond to that only.  So, what do you think of my summary other than what you bolded?  What type of people do you think that Trump was dog-whistling to, to try to take over the United States with flagpoles and pocket knives, such that he should be on trial for that as the opposition candidate for president?

Who thinks the deplorable horde of unthinking animals was trying to take over the United States?

We think they were trying to delay the peaceful transition of power until Trump's idiot lawyers could "release the Kraken".

But if the animals got to to bash some congressmen along the way?  Fine with the deplorable scum. 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Sleepy Donald was dozing off without his cocaine bumps to keep him active  

[jerryskids 5,212]

22 minutes ago, Fnord said:

You believe that neither Trump nor any of his advisors or other colorful folks in his coterie like Roger Stone and the rest of the "Willard War Room" crowd had any contact with or knowledge of the plans of the seditionists?

Tell you what.  If the prosecution can show such contact/coordination, I'll retract my objection to this trial and admit it is valid.  And if they cannot, you admit that it is a banana republic farce.  Agreed?   

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,529]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Sleepy Donald was dozing off without his cocaine bumps to keep him active  

Where are your "witty" posts when Biden is falling down stairs and falling asleep?  

I should see multiple daily posts from you concerning Biden since he's doing it daily.

[jerryskids 5,212]

15 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Who thinks the deplorable horde of unthinking animals was trying to take over the United States?

We think they were trying to delay the peaceful transition of power until Trump's idiot lawyers could "release the Kraken".

But if the animals got to to bash some congressmen along the way?  Fine with the deplorable scum. 

Clearly you hold these people in the highest esteem, as I indicated earlier.  You are the biggest pseud here, the epitome of the useful idiot who leverages his ability to count beans to think he belongs at the cool kids' table of elitists.   

[zsasz 199]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Was it democratic driven when he defrauded his cultist "college" students and had to pay $25M?

How about when he stole from his fake charity?

There tons more.

What's it like being a cuck for an orange idiot who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

It's amazing how the so called Party of Responsibility wants personal responsibility for everyone OTHER than the man they want to lead them.

I'm sure Chuck Shurmur is at fault for Trump U going on and defrauding students.  

[Fnord 1,141]

45 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's funny, I've said a bazillion times here that I'm not a fan of Trump.  Perhaps the "narcissistic doosh" phrase in the post you quoted was a clue?  Yet you accuse me of the very thing (well, opposite thing) that I accuse you of.

But before we get into that:  I hesitate to type long posts like I did, because folks will take what they perceive as the "weakest" part of it and respond to that only.  So, what do you think of my summary other than what you bolded?  What type of people do you think that Trump was dog-whistling to, to try to take over the United States with flagpoles and pocket knives, such that he should be on trial for that as the opposition candidate for president?

I think your summary makes perfect sense if you are inclined to believe Trump had no knowledge of or participation in the attack. I would feel the same.

[jerryskids 5,212]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I think your summary makes perfect sense if you are inclined to believe Trump had no knowledge of or participation in the attack. I would feel the same.

Do you believe that being "inclined to believe" that Trump had such knowledge is sufficient to criminally prosecute the challenger to POTUS?

[Fnord 1,141]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Do you believe that being "inclined to believe" that Trump had such knowledge is sufficient to criminally prosecute the challenger to POTUS?

Yes. Obviously assuming that said inclination toward belief is based on facts uncovered by professionals during the course of a thorough, legal investigation. Not because politicians, media personalities or news outlets claim it.

[squistion 898]

57 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Where are your "witty" posts when Biden is falling down stairs and falling asleep?  

I should see multiple daily posts from you concerning Biden since he's doing it daily.

Fun Fact:

We do see those daily posts like that multiple times in threads every single day (and few of those threads have to do with Biden, like this one). 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

47 minutes ago, zsasz said:

It's amazing how the so called Party of Responsibility wants personal responsibility for everyone OTHER than the man they want to lead them.

I'm sure Chuck Shurmur is at fault for Trump U going on and defrauding students.  

Trump U was a joke. Trump took responsibility and paid. Case closed. 

[Ron_Artest 682]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trump U was a joke. Trump took responsibility and paid. Case closed. 

Only because he was sued multiple times

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

 

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

You believe that neither Trump nor any of his advisors or other colorful folks in his coterie like Roger Stone and the rest of the "Willard War Room" crowd had any contact with or knowledge of the plans of the seditionists?

 

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Tell you what.  If the prosecution can show such contact/coordination, I'll retract my objection to this trial and admit it is valid.  And if they cannot, you admit that it is a banana republic farce.  Agreed?   

 

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

I think your summary makes perfect sense if you are inclined to believe Trump had no knowledge of or participation in the attack. I would feel the same.

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

It's funny, I've said a bazillion times here that I'm not a fan of Trump.  Perhaps the "narcissistic doosh" phrase in the post you quoted was a clue?  Yet you accuse me of the very thing (well, opposite thing) that I accuse you of.

But before we get into that:  I hesitate to type long posts like I did, because folks will take what they perceive as the "weakest" part of it and respond to that only.  So, what do you think of my summary other than what you bolded?  What type of people do you think that Trump was dog-whistling to, to try to take over the United States with flagpoles and pocket knives, such that he should be on trial for that as the opposition candidate for president?

You two guys really need to read the indictment, there isn't much about the attack on the Capitol. It's concentrates on the fake elector scheme.  

 

Quote

 

The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts...

For one, Mr. Smith said little about the violent events of Jan. 6, leaving out vast amounts of evidence in the report by a House committee that separately investigated the matter. He focused more on a brazen plan to recruit false slates of electors from swing states and a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to block the congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.

That choice dovetails with Mr. Smith’s decision not to charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy — potential charges the House committee recommended. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Mr. Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise.

Mr. Trump, of course, did not rampage through the Capitol. But the indictment accuses him of committing other crimes — the fraud and voter disenfranchisement conspiracies — based on wrongful conduct. It cites Mr. Trump’s bid to use fake electors in violation of the Electoral Count Act and his solicitation of fraud at the Justice Department and in Georgia, where he pressured Mr. Raffensperger to help him “find” 11,780 votes, enough to overcome Mr. Biden’s margin of victory.

“Whether he thinks he won or lost is relevant but not determinative,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former prosecutor who worked on the independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton. “Trump could try to achieve vindicating his beliefs legally. The conspiracy is tied to the illegal means. So he has to say that he thought ‘finding’ 11,000 votes was legal, or that fake electors were legal. That is much harder to say with a straight face.”

The inclusion of the charge involving a conspiracy to disenfranchise voters was a surprising development in Mr. Smith’s emerging strategy. Unlike the other charges, it had not been a major part of the public discussion of the investigation — for example, it was not among the charges recommended by the House Jan. 6 committee.

 

HTH

 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

9 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

 

You two guys really need to read the indictment, there isn't much about the attack on the Capitol. It's concentrates on the fake elector scheme.  

 

HTH

 

The fake electors thing is a slam dunk. His only hope is to say he was relying on the advice of counsel, but really — can anyone have possibly thought that was kosher? No effin’ way

[jerryskids 5,212]

56 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

 

You two guys really need to read the indictment, there isn't much about the attack on the Capitol. It's concentrates on the fake elector scheme.  

 

HTH

 

I appreciate the info. I believe I was specifically responding to questions about my beliefs of Trump’s culpability on 1/6.

Good to know that the prosecution agrees that it was a nothingburger.

 

[Strike 3,981]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Do you believe that being "inclined to believe" that Trump had such knowledge is sufficient to criminally prosecute the challenger to POTUS?

Not to get in the way of what I'm sure will be a fruitful exchange between you and whichever leftie you're currently engaged with, but these are the people who thought it was appropriate to stop a duly nominated SC justice from being confirmed based on an allegation that came out 30 years after high school from an accuser who couldn't remember when (within years) or where she was assaulted, and who's own named witnesses refuted her story.

[double tour 82]

For the past 9 years everything the liberals whined about Trump was "historic" in  their eyes. None of that whining was about anything memorable though. Add this one to the long list of TDS driven liberal actions that no one will remember. 

[gas 76]

Gawd that fat orange fock whines a lot.

Imagine being such a cuck that you think he's an Alpha.

[Maximum Overkill 652]

5 hours ago, gas said:

Gawd that fat orange fock whines a lot.

Imagine being such a cuck that you think he's an Alpha.

I love this for you Cultist Pedocrats  

 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

Looks like I hit a lot of leftists in their soft spot.  LOL  To all of you who are pretending that all of the trials and impeachment bull crap wasn't 100% political, well, I'm sorry you're stupid.  If we can't all agree on the most obvious things, there's nothing really worth discussing.

[Engorgeous George 1,185]

14 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Can’t believe that’s really your argument

I think most lawyers, most judges, most decent law school professors would agree with me.  For instance I could criticise and insult this judge or any member of SCOTUS right now and what are they going to do about it.  Now if I criticise or take umbrage with their rulings whil in their coiurts they may not appreciate it, but if i insult them personally or their staff they can hold me in contempt.  As for threats, wel threats have never been considered actionable threats unless the person had the present means of carrying out the threat.  I understood you are a lawyer, you should know this, it should not surprise you.  Perhaps I remembered wrong and you are not a lawyer.

 

This judge's attempts to stiffle Trump are bsed, to my understanding, primarily on the theory that Trump ought not be allowed to taint the jury pool.  It is a highly unusual ruling where I judge is concerned only about one side tainting the pool.  I get why that is the case with trump but the court's order would be strongdr if it were bilateral.  Much stronger.  now the bilateral nature of the ruling would not really matterf if the prosecution were obeying norms,, it would in fact be irrelevant as a matter of fact, but as a mattder of law it would be a correct order.

Thjere is also the considertion that truthful statementsare not threats, insults or criticism.  I understand that mixed in among Trumps angry outburst are some nuggets of truth.  If the Judge does not want his adult daughter being characterized as what she is, a democrat operative, then she can change her profession or he can recuse himself.

I do not tht this judge is trying mightily to allow voir dire to empanel a well vetted jury panel which should in theory be fair.  In a trial such as this, however, I have doubts that can be accomplished, but so far his efforts in this regard seem unusually thorough. 

[BeachGuy23 512]

51 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Looks like I hit a lot of leftists in their soft spot.  LOL  To all of you who are pretending that all of the trials and impeachment bull crap wasn't 100% political, well, I'm sorry you're stupid.  If we can't all agree on the most obvious things, there's nothing really worth discussing.

Was Trump U political?  Was him stealing from is charity political?  Were the countless other times he's been sued political?

What's it like be such a pathetic cuck for a dude who despises you?

[Engorgeous George 1,185]

15 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Sounds like cognitive decline.

Maybe the fat, prediabetic man in his 80's had some blood sugar problems after a run to McDonalds.  A three Big Mac, large fry, and large coke meal would have a few of us dozing off and then needing a recess to squeeze out a log the likes of which killed Elvis and will be Trump's undoing in the end as well.  Oh, it could also be cognitive decline but with Trump's unusual diction and rambling style of speach featuring non sequiturs that would be difficult to determine.

[Tree of Knowledge 837]

Amazing thread.  I only thought a group of cub scouts coming to their door to ask for help earning merit badges would cause this much excitement with the TDS crew.  

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

18 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

He's a Snooze Criminal

[squistion 898]

"Imagine committing so many crimes that you get bored at your own trial"

 

[squistion 898]