Trump Verdict

RELH said:
NMFROM81 SAID
:Even in NY there are R’s and independents. You really think the entire jury was composed of ultra-liberal democrats? Actually, I’m sure you do.
______________________________________________________________________
What you are over looking is that D.A. Bragg, a Democrat can walk over to the voter registration office and whisper in the ear of a fellow Democrat in that office, "here is the jury list of names that will be called, find out which ones are registered as Democrats and the ones that are Republican", and nobody would be wise to the deceit by Bragg. I leave it up to your pea brain which jury members would get dismissed by the prosecution attorney for one reason or another.
Trump's attorneys would not have the power to do that as Bragg could and get away with it.
RELH
Click to expand...
We have an entire country that is afraid to speak their mind so they don’t get smeared, cancelled, blackballed, etc.

NY voted 85% Dem, what are the chances they wouldn’t feel pressure to convict? Especially with a DA that campaigned on getting Trump and a judge whose daughter is raising $10’s of millions for the dem party. Yep, this is all on the up and up 🤡
 
RELH said:
NMFROM81 SAID
:Even in NY there are R’s and independents. You really think the entire jury was composed of ultra-liberal democrats? Actually, I’m sure you do.
______________________________________________________________________
What you are over looking is that D.A. Bragg, a Democrat can walk over to the voter registration office and whisper in the ear of a fellow Democrat in that office, "here is the jury list of names that will be called, find out which ones are registered as Democrats and the ones that are Republican", and nobody would be wise to the deceit by Bragg. I leave it up to your pea brain which jury members would get dismissed by the prosecution attorney for one reason or another.
Trump's attorneys would not have the power to do that as Bragg could and get away with it.
RELH
Click to expand...
Wow, you exposed that corruption really quick. Can you imagine if that BS story was actually found to be true?

I should have never questioned the guy who brags about his 130 IQ. You got it all figured.
 
It appears that NMFROM81 is a die hard bent wrist liberal Democrat that will never admit how deceitful our current Democrat admin. is and capable of doing to stay in office.
Talk about being a mushroom in a dark cave and being shoveled manure to survive is NMFROM81 along with many other Democrats. I will never understand how some people can be so dumb and blind at the same time not to see what the Democrat party has done to this country and it's citizens.
RELH
 
RELH said:
It appears that NMFROM81 is a die hard bent wrist liberal Democrat that will never admit how deceitful our current Democrat admin. is and capable of doing to stay in office.
Talk about being a mushroom in a dark cave and being shoveled manure to survive is NMFROM81 along with many other Democrats. I will never understand how some people can be so dumb and blind at the same time not to see what the Democrat party has done to this country and it's citizens.
RELH
Click to expand...
Wow, I’m starting to think you lied about your 130 IQ score….or maybe it was a rigged test?

The only thing you know about me is I don’t like Trump. Everything else you said about me is factually wrong.
 
Are you saying that you are not like some Democrats who believe if you tell a lie enough, it will become the truth. Sorry but believing you is very hard for me after reading your posts. You and sleepy Joe and Hillary would make a good threesome on telling the truth.
RELH
 
NMFROM81 said:
12-0. Not a single person that heard all the evidence had a reasonable doubt. He only needed 1 to avoid conviction….pretty high bar, even in a blue state.

Even in NY there are R’s and independents. You really think the entire jury was composed of ultra-liberal democrats? Actually, I’m sure you do.
Click to expand...


I'll have to read.

But there were 4 possible charges. The DA didn't ever charge with one.

And it wasn't mandatory to be 12-0 on any.


As to Manhattan, yeah, Manhattan is overwhelmingly democrat, not sure how you missed that. More important though, what do you think the left would do to the juror, or jurors family if they dared go for Trump? There names will leak out.

And. Next week Hunters trial begins. We all have bought guns, so we all know the yellow sheet.

Hunter will walk.

"No one is above the law", pertains to one side.
 
You Know Me Better Than That Homer!

But I'm Sick Of The BS Already & Have Been For Many Years!

Let's CIVIL War This Sshhitt Out Again!

I'm Past Ready!

Homer said:
Capable of the job just got convicted of 34 make believe felonies....There are only 2 sides at this point bess.....get aboard or join niller and grizz on the opposition team....
Click to expand...
 
Pandora's Box has been opened with this trial and the other "Law Fare" cases against Trump. Our country will never be the same and the political process will be no holds barred and anything goes. Hold on...things are going to get worse and at this point seeing our country going downhill.
 
The Dems have reinforced that no one is safe from their wrath and the lengths they will go to instill control. Fear mongering and bullying is their way.
 
For everybody who is going to keep repeating the lie that Trump didn't know the charges. Here's the actual indictment from over a year ago. Every charge is spelled out...

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

To people who claim the jury didn't have to be unanimous on the charge. That's not true. I posted the jury instructions yesterday (which almost nobody will read for themselves) but what it says... “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: one, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; two, the falsification of other business records; or three, violation of tax laws.”

In other words, if a sign says "No Vehicle Parking" the jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on whether or was a blue Chevy or a green Chevy, just that somebody illegally parked a vehicle.

The question is, "Was the illegitimate business record in furtherance of a crime?" Which crime doesn't really matter as long as they all agree an additional crime was committed.

Of course, we don't yet know what they all ended thinking. They could've been unanimous on the crime as well.
 
RELH said:
Trump's attorneys would not have the power to do that as Bragg could and get away with it.
RELH
Click to expand...

Voter registration status is generally public record. You could go get those if you wanted them. Trump’s attorneys certainly could. (And probably did)

Plus, it isn’t hard to ascertain one’s political leanings by asking other questions in voir dire. It’s quite easy, actually. Getting voter registration records isn’t necessary to make those determinations. I don’t assume or believe this, I know this.

I do agree that area is heavy left. That isn’t hard to see. Likely that jury was comprised heavily of left as well, just based upon statistics. But the 6th amendment doesn’t guarantee you a jury of your political party mates.
 
notdonhunting said:
Is thus the liars you keep referring too grizzly?
It seems pepole on CNN didn't believe in the show trial.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1795520883039338972
Click to expand...
Haha, see what happens when a news organization puts experts with both opinions on their channel. Oh, you're not familiar with that? Hmmm.

Plenty of legal experts agreed with the charges, you just AS ALWAYS only see what you already agree with.

You keep proving my point. OVER & OVER AGAIN.
 
notdonhunting said:
Vanilla research the fact judge Merchant allowed the prosecution to present evidence in their closing arguments.
Click to expand...

I have not been able to find this. I’ve scrolled through a crap ton of links online and have not found what statements in closing argument presented evidence. That would be improper if it happened, just like mentioning a potential sentence to the jury is entirely improper. But after some looking this morning, I haven’t found what you’re referring to.

notdonhunting said:
Have you ever heard of a judge giving jurists instructions that they could be 4 jurists find guilty of some of the charges and 4 others jurists find guilty on other charges and 4 others find guilty on other charges that would mean guilty on all charges.
Just a couple things to look into.
Click to expand...

After reading through, I can say that the way you describe it here did not happen. They were not instructed if some jurors found guilty on some of the charges and some on the other, they could convict on all. Grizz gives a good description of how it did go down. I’m not familiar with NY law, and I’m definitely not going to go do the caselaw research to find out (unless someone is putting me on retainer…), but that jury instruction would be problematic in Utah based upon our caselaw. I believe that jury instruction, if given in Utah, would result in a reversal and a new trial.
 
Also, I found this opinion piece very enlightening. I found it while searching for other things mentioned above. Now, it’s an OPINION piece. And it happens to come from a very left leaning publication. However, it’s someone that actually knows what they are talking about based upon real experience and illustrates some of the bigger issues this case presented. There were definitely some issues!

nymag.com

Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Also Contorted the Law

The Manhattan jury was thrown into a Frankenstein’s monster of a case.
nymag.com nymag.com
 
Vanilla said:
I have not been able to find this. I’ve scrolled through a crap ton of links online and have not found what statements in closing argument presented evidence. That would be improper if it happened, just like mentioning a potential sentence to the jury is entirely improper. But after some looking this morning, I haven’t found what you’re referring to.



After reading through, I can say that the way you describe it here did not happen. They were not instructed if some jurors found guilty on some of the charges and some on the other, they could convict on all. Grizz gives a good description of how it did go down. I’m not familiar with NY law, and I’m definitely not going to go do the caselaw research to find out (unless someone is putting me on retainer…), but that jury instruction would be problematic in Utah based upon our caselaw. I believe that jury instruction, if given in Utah, would result in a reversal and a new trial.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you’re looking but even the Trump hating Dershowitz was talking about the non unanimous violation, jury instructions, etc.
 
Flyjunky12 said:
I don’t know where you’re looking but even the Trump hating Dershowitz was talking about the non unanimous violation, jury instructions, etc.
Click to expand...

I’m looking at the actual jury instructions, not what anyone else says about them. I read the exact words.

And if you look, you’ll see I mentioned that there would be an issue with those instructions, even if they were not given the way described in the posts above. It simply didn’t go down the way presented to me. Period. There isn’t even a debate. However, the way it did go down seems problematic anyway. At least to me analyzing it under Utah law. (Which doesn’t apply in NY.)
 
Vanilla said:
I’m looking at the actual jury instructions, not what anyone else says about them. I read the exact words.

And if you look, you’ll see I mentioned that there would be an issue with those instructions, even if they were not given the way described in the posts above. It simply didn’t go down the way presented to me. Period. There isn’t even a debate. However, the way it did go down seems problematic anyway. At least to me analyzing it under Utah law. (Which doesn’t apply in NY.)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what to tell you but from all I’ve heard and an interview this morning with two state AG’s, they both said the same thing….just by the 6th amendment violation alone, which they both brought up the non-unanimous jury, this should be overturned not taking into account all the other issues that went on.
 
Vanilla said:
Also, I found this opinion piece very enlightening. I found it while searching for other things mentioned above. Now, it’s an OPINION piece. And it happens to come from a very left leaning publication. However, it’s someone that actually knows what they are talking about based upon real experience and illustrates some of the bigger issues this case presented. There were definitely some issues!

nymag.com

Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Also Contorted the Law

The Manhattan jury was thrown into a Frankenstein’s monster of a case.
nymag.com nymag.com
Click to expand...
“No man is above the law.” It’s become cliché, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle. But it’s also meaningless pablum if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there. The jury’s word is indeed sacrosanct, as I learned long ago. But it can’t fix everything that preceded it. Here, prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.

In other words, they were "Trumped up" charges. :)
 
As a non lawyer, I'm assuming some of you are, it's astounding to me that you can have charges brought, but a jury doesn't have to be unanimous but only need their votes to equal 12 combined.

It's also wild that one payment(supposedly) can be split into 34 charges.
 
Flyjunky12 said:
I’m not sure what to tell you but from all I’ve heard and an interview this morning with two state AG’s, they both said the same thing….just by the 6th amendment violation alone, which they both brought up the non-unanimous jury, this should be overturned not taking into account all the other issues that went on.
Click to expand...

I’m not going off what “I’ve heard.” I’m going off looking at the actual instructions given, and creating my own original thought.

Go back and re-read what I wrote, however. You’re arguing against a boogie man that doesn’t exist here. Just scroll back up and read how I said those instructions are problematic and what the result would be in my state. Then come argue against that for some weird reason.

Did elkassasin or tristate take over your account?
 
hossblur said:
True, and is still the most conservative President in over 40yrs
Click to expand...
There is some POWERFUL wishful thinking going on in trumpland :ROFLMAO:

I will never understand the ridiculous narrative that trump is a righteous outsider, and how so many otherwise smart fellers swallowed the hook.

He is the very definition on the swamp, and he WAS just judged by HIS peeps. Sorry boys, Jesus didn’t crawl out of the liberal cesspool trump crawled out of.
 
hossblur said:
As to Manhattan, yeah, Manhattan is overwhelmingly democrat, not sure how you missed that. More important though, what do you think the left would do to the juror, or jurors family if they dared go for Trump? There names will leak out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I explicitly acknowledge the political lean of the area the jury was pulled from. Apparently you can’t read.

Are you suggesting the names of the jurors should get purposely leaked so they can get harassed? Yeah, that’s respecting the legal system.

You must think the left is only side that would go after someone…..that’s laughable.
 
No politician until Trump has ever been criminally charged for paying hush money to cover up an extra marital affair while running for president. ;)

Screen Shot 2024-05-31 at 8.10.10 AM.png
 
Keystone said:
As a non lawyer, I'm assuming some of you are, it's astounding to me that you can have charges brought, but a jury doesn't have to be unanimous but only need their votes to equal 12 combined.

It's also wild that one payment(supposedly) can be split into 34 charges.
Click to expand...
Louisiana and Oregon were the two states who didn’t need a unanimous decision, until 2020 and the Ramos vs Louisiana decision.
 
Vanilla said:
I’m not going off what “I’ve heard.” I’m going off looking at the actual instructions given, and creating my own original thought.

Go back and re-read what I wrote, however. You’re arguing against a boogie man that doesn’t exist here. Just scroll back up and read how I said those instructions are problematic and what the result would be in my state. Then come argue against that for some weird reason.

Did elkassasin or tristate take over your account?
Click to expand...
I think we’re talking semantics because:

“Among Merchan's instructions to the jury was that for Trump to be convicted, all jurors must agree he falsified business documents to cover up a crime. However, they do not have to agree on what the crime he was trying to cover up was, Merchan said.”

Considering the “crime” was already suspect yet they don’t have to agree on what crime it was? If they don’t have to agree he was trying to influence an election than why is it a problem?

It’s such a cluster
 
Bluehair said:
There is some POWERFUL wishful thinking going on in trumpland :ROFLMAO:

I will never understand the ridiculous narrative that trump is a righteous outsider, and how so many otherwise smart fellers swallowed the hook.

He is the very definition on the swamp, and he WAS just judged by HIS peeps. Sorry boys, Jesus didn’t crawl out of the liberal cesspool trump crawled out of.
Click to expand...

"Rig
Bluehair said:
There is some POWERFUL wishful thinking going on in trumpland :ROFLMAO:

I will never understand the ridiculous narrative that trump is a righteous outsider, and how so many otherwise smart fellers swallowed the hook.

He is the very definition on the swamp, and he WAS just judged by HIS peeps. Sorry boys, Jesus didn’t crawl out of the liberal cesspool trump crawled out of.
Click to expand...

Righteous? You think his voters were so stupid they didn't know anything about one of the most famous men on the planet?

Outsider yes.

When you hit the son of the guy who had Kennedy killed, bet your ass, you become a target.

Cheney's, Obama's, Shumers, Romneys, amazingly come together when their power is challenged.
 
hossblur said:
"Rig

Righteous? You think his voters were so stupid they didn't know anything about one of the most famous men on the planet?

Outsider yes.

When you hit the son of the guy who had Kennedy killed, bet your ass, you become a target.

Cheney's, Obama's, Shumers, Romneys, amazingly come together when their power is challenged.
Click to expand...
Surprise- I agree with grizz again. This won’t change the vote total at all.

Well, maybe by one ;)
 
NMFROM81 said:
Yeah, I explicitly acknowledge the political lean of the area the jury was pulled from. Apparently you can’t read.

Are you suggesting the names of the jurors should get purposely leaked so they can get harassed? Yeah, that’s respecting the legal system.

You must think the left is only side that would go after someone…..that’s laughable.
Click to expand...

Nope I don't.

I don't think SCOTUS should have folks on their front yard daily harassing them either, but I'm old school I guess.

What is sad, is the libs let this cat out of the bag. They naively believe they are unique.

Harry Reid was that stupid, and now it's a constant whine from libs about a 5-4 court.

This use of courts instead of ballot boxes, is now the lefts mantra

Good luck to libs in Texas, Wyoming, Florida, and even Utah.
 
Bluehair said:
Surprise- I agree with grizz again. This won’t change the vote total at all.

Well, maybe by one ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe.

We shall see.

"No one is above the law" is gonna come back on Biden now.

Hunter is facing prison, let's see how that goes.

Soccer moms don't like mean tweets. They really hate bullies
 
eelgrass said:
It might be kind of awkward having Trump as President while he's in prison. That might happen if Biden is the only other choice.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins the election he will NOT be spending time in prison. He would simply make all the indictments/convictions go away (he has the majority of the SCOTUS in his back pocket).

His running for POTUS is an all or nothing proposition : win = free from all pending charges, lose= more convictions and jail time.

This conviction will help rally the MAGA cult behind Trump even more, but at the end of the day this election gets decided by independents and moderate Republicans in swing states.
 
Last edited:
CenterFire said:
If Trump wins the election he will NOT be spending time in prison. He would simply make all the indictments/convictions go away (he has the majority of the SCOTUS in his back pocket).

His running for POTUS is an all or nothing proposition : win = free from all pending charges, lose= more convictions and jail time
Click to expand...

Are you implying judges are bias?
 
Long view.

Tge best thing to come from covid, was parents getting exposed to just how bad the public education system had become. A lot of people lost jobs, and income as tge silent majority rose up.

Long view on this. The silent majority is getting a crash course on just how corrupt the legal system is. It abusing some dude no one knows, doesn't bring awareness.

This crap in NY, will bring it front and center.

I agree. If you live or do business in NY, you have to be beyond stupid to remain
 
Come on , it is absolutely proven that the left is throwing every single idea they have to keep Trump out of the election. Some things might have a little merit but most don't. That's the corruption. And the left is making good things look bad and bad things look good. I won't debate you because I work with idiots that stick to their stupid belief tgat their leader is competent and honest.
🌕 and 🌑, 🌨 or shine. 🆘️
 
DeerMadness said:
Come on , it is absolutely proven that the left is throwing every single idea they have to keep Trump out of the election. Some things might have a little merit but most don't. That's the corruption. And the left is making good things look bad and bad things look good. I won't debate you because I work with idiots that stick to their stupid belief tgat their leader is competent and honest.
🌕 and 🌑, 🌨 or shine. 🆘️
Click to expand...
It’s election interference, as per usual the dems doing exactly what they claim the right is doing.
 
I Don't Give A FF Whether They Are A DEMOCRAT Or A REPUBLICAN!

But I Doubt There Are Any DEMOCRATS Left I'd Vote For,If So,Very Few!

Yes I Lean Strong To The REPUBLICAN Side!

Been Called A RIGHT-F'N-WINGER!

This FUSTER-CLUCK Is Something Else!
 

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

To people who claim the jury didn't have to be unanimous on the charge. That's not true. I posted the jury instructions yesterday (which almost nobody will read for themselves) but what it says... “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: one, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; two, the falsification of other business records; or three, violation of tax laws.”

In other words, if a sign says "No Vehicle Parking" the jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on whether or was a blue Chevy or a green Chevy, just that somebody illegally parked a vehicle.

The question is, "Was the illegitimate business record in furtherance of a crime?" Which crime doesn't really matter as long as they all agree an additional crime was committed.

Of course, we don't yet know what they all ended thinking. They could've been unanimous on the crime as well.
[/QUOTE]
Your truck analogy is stupid, you are talking about one crime (parking). The judge is telling the jurists they can convict for illegally parking as long as they find him guilty for jay walking, or lottering.




grizzly said:
For everybody who is going to keep repeating the lie that Trump didn't know the charges. Here's the actual indictment from over a year ago. Every charge is spelled out...

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: one, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; two, the falsification of other business records; or three, violation of tax laws.”[/B]


Screenshot_20240531_123843_Google.jpg


What does FICA have to do with state prosecution?

So you are saying it is ok to be prosecuted for poaching of an elk in Colorado as long as the jury agrees the person illegally hunted without a license In Utah, or didn't signed there license in Utah.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
grizzly said:
Haha, see what happens when a news organization puts experts with both opinions on their channel. Oh, you're not familiar with that? Hmmm.

Plenty of legal experts agreed with the charges, you just AS ALWAYS only see what you already agree with.

You keep proving my point. OVER & OVER AGAIN.
Click to expand...
According to you they are liars if they are on FOX but they are experts if they are on CNN.
 
I hate saying this but Trump is not being treated fairly. He is obviously being singled out. To be fair an umbrella indictment should be filed against nearly every elected politician in DC and the DOJ enforcement. Let's not exclude those being influenced by outside forces and money seeking absolute power.

Hey Dems trying to be the voice of rationale yet support this!!! 🖕
 
tailchasers said:
I hate saying this but Trump is not being treated fairly. He is obviously being singled out. To be fair an umbrella indictment should be filed against nearly every elected politician in DC and the DOJ enforcement. Let's not exclude those being influenced by outside forces and money seeking absolute power.

Hey Dems trying to be the voice of rationale yet support this!!! 🖕
Click to expand...
Well said and whether Dems believe it or not this trial/verdict hurts us all.

I sincerely hope the R’s get some balls and go after every dem. The only thing that will curtail this shitshow is actually seeing everyone of these puke politicians thrown in jail. If this happens I don’t want to hear a single dem whine….they opened this can of worms. I posted this in the meme section but it fits well here. I won’t vote for a republican going forward unless they have the balls to do what needs to be done.

1717190658296.png
 
Bluehair said:
Yeah, besides honor, integrity, and character in general they are almost the same.
Click to expand...


My homies in the hood didn't think there was much honor, integrity, or character in the metric tons of crack that mysteriously ended up in their neighborhood.

Which side of the contra war was the character producer.?


Oh. Kiki Camerena was wondering about honor as he was tortured for days for daring to object to drugs for guns.

But sure, honor and character I guess are important.
 
hossblur said:
My homies in the hood didn't think there was much honor, integrity, or character in the metric tons of crack that mysteriously ended up in their neighborhood.

Which side of the contra war was the character producer.?


Oh. Kiki Camerena was wondering about honor as he was tortured for days for daring to object to drugs for guns.

But sure, honor and character I guess are important.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing about character with people who voted for the kid sniffer, daughter showering, lying, China/Ukraine grifter Biden?

That’s rich 🤑
 
It appears the charge is enhanceable if in furtherance of “another crime.”

So that “other crime” was the federal charge, not what he was charged with.

At least that’s how I read it. He was not charged with a federal crime. The acts were what enhanced it.
 
Vanilla said:
It appears the charge is enhanceable if in furtherance of “another crime.”

So that “other crime” was the federal charge, not what he was charged with.

At least that’s how I read it. He was not charged with a federal crime. The acts were what enhanced it.
Click to expand...


But that crime is federal.

Wouldn't a federal prosecutor have to bring that?

Obviously not a lawyer, but how does the state get to introduce federal crimes?
 
hossblur said:
But that crime is federal.

Wouldn't a federal prosecutor have to bring that?

Obviously not a lawyer, but how does the state get to introduce federal crimes?
Click to expand...

First, let me be clear before I type this as I’ve seen how the rest of the discussion has gone, I’m not endorsing what happened. Just explaining how I understand it went down.

I don’t think you have to bring the actual charge for it to count on the enhancement, from how it reads in the case. But even that seems odd to me. I’ve said from the beginning I don’t think this case should have been filed. There seems to be some real reaching going on.
 
elkassassin said:
The Friend Discount,Right Hossy?
Click to expand...

Always seems to be 100% for some reason.

Did my bro in laws house years ago. "Wedding present" for kids trying to get in a house. Her plumber brother and I were sweat equity part of down payment.

They sold it almost exactly 2 years later, and my biatch sis in law bragged how much money they made on it and wanted to know if I would do there new one.

Gotta love family
 
hossblur said:
Always seems to be 100% for some reason.

Did my bro in laws house years ago. "Wedding present" for kids trying to get in a house. Her plumber brother and I were sweat equity part of down payment.

They sold it almost exactly 2 years later, and my biatch sis in law bragged how much money they made on it and wanted to know if I would do there new one.

Gotta love family
Click to expand...
Been there and done that when I was a cabinet maker.
 
"Reluctant Prosecutor" LMFAO 🤣
Screen Shot 2024-06-01 at 11.41.45 AM.png



So reluctant that getting Trump was his primary campaign platform when running for District Attorney. An election that he won with 86% of the vote.

The same people touting conviction by a jury of 12 of Trump's peers are still bitching & crying about Kyle Rittenhouse getting acquitted on all counts by a jury of his peers.

Oh well, Happy Pride Month to all!

 
Last edited:
A couple interesting threads from Brad Smith, attorney & former chair of the FEC... who was prevented from testifying by Judge Merchan.

Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.14.38 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.15.14 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.15.33 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.15.47 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.16.04 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.16.21 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.16.42 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.16.59 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.17.16 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-02 at 10.17.54 AM.png
 
Maybe grizz can chime in on this as he seems to know more about this case and law than all these lawyers I’ve heard.

I’m sure Mr. Smith is wrong and grizz will set us straight.
 
Flyjunky12 said:
Nice post. Every non-partisan lawyer has said this will get overturned and it was a sham trial. The dems know both of these things and realize it will only be overturned after the election, hopefully hurting Trump enough to win them the election.

This trial is the REAL election interference.
Click to expand...
One would think that to have a fair and impartial trial the judge wouldn't prevent key witnesses from testifying? The prosecution I'm sure could have produced their own witness to refute Brad Smith's testimony and make the case as to why he might be wrong and let the jury decide. To not allow what appears to be a crucial defense witness paints a really ugly picture of everything but fair & impartial.
 
The reality, and it's true in this case as well. The left, realized long ago, the process IS the punishment.

Lawyers ain't cheap. All the surrounding witnesses and such ain't either.

The DA, gets paid the same either way. He loses nothing, either way.

A conviction is just icing on the cake.

And the reality, is, even if it's overturned, so what? They don't refund the money. They don't give back the time. Bragg doesn't lose his job.

The right is going to have to start going after Dems, make it painful as possible, and maybe mutually assured destruction will stop this crap.
 
Biden should pardon Trump, he might find himself on the other end of all this pretty soon. Trump is grade A NYC real estate scum, pretty much everything republicans hated until he took up their flag (overwhelming Irony).

BUT, despite trump being a complete dumpster fire of a human and a life long mob boss wannabe, this is not the way. Pardon him.

Our political system is rapidly devolving into something more closely resembling a former soviet bloc country. The earth isnt round or flat, its F#cked.
 
Last edited:
TKMulePacker said:
Biden should pardon Trump, he might find himself on the other end of all this pretty soon. Trump is grade A NYC real estate scum, pretty much everything republicans hated until he took up their flag (overwhelming Irony).

BUT, despite trump being a complete dumpster fire of a human and a life long mob boss wannabe, this is not the way. Pardon him.

Our political system is rapidly devolving into something more closely resembling a former soviet bloc country. The earth isnt round or flat, its F#cked.
Click to expand...
STFU
 
TKMulePacker said:
Biden should pardon Trump, he might find himself on the other end of all this pretty soon. Trump is grade A NYC real estate scum, pretty much everything republicans hated until he took up their flag (overwhelming Irony).

BUT, despite trump being a complete dumpster fire of a human and a life long mob boss wannabe, this is not the way. Pardon him.

Our political system is rapidly devolving into something more closely resembling a former soviet bloc country. The earth isnt round or flat, its F#cked.
Click to expand...
If Trump would have been half the “mobster” you claim don’t you think they would have brought that up by now….get real.
 
feddoc said:
www.thegatewaypundit.com

Jesse Watters: "There is Something Very Fishy About How Judge Merchan Came to Preside Over This Case" | The Gateway Pundit | by Margaret Flavin

Just before the jury returned a guilty verdict in corrupt Judge Juan Merchan’s kangaroo court, without even specifying what crime President Trump committed, Fox News host Jesse Watters highlighted serious concerns about communist New York Judge Juan Merchan.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
Click to expand...
Several fed lawyers were discussing this very thing. He’s an appointed hit man…no way possible this guy could get all these cases by random chance….especially when his name wasn’t on the list!!

Fk’n dem pos
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

joesikora
F1
Replies
2
Views
1k
BeanMan
BeanMan

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_20211027_183932_424.jpg
Screenshot_20210820-081828_Photos.jpg
20201118_175551.jpg
20211115_140752.jpg
66833790-7553-44E4-8705-235DE43741C0.png
Wyoming bull II.jpg
IMG_6251.jpeg
Screenshot_20210820-081058_Photos.jpg
1591133914994.png
Screenshot_20230824_201853_Gallery.jpg
IMG_1739.jpeg
146EFA95-8A90-4AA8-AF79-E4B2290B9C4F.png
Back
Top Bottom