Fu*%face Von Clownstick

Let’s just wait till tomorrow, when we actually see the charges. Keep in mind that at least three other entities have declined to prosecute: the feds, the FEC, and the previous DA, Cy Vance. Leads me to believe the case is tenuous at best, and unavoidably political. Bragg ran on the promise that he would get Trump. I assure you, prosecutors should not ideally be running for office on the promise of “getting” anyone.

At any rate, that mugshot will be the most widely shared photo in the history of the internet. It will be on t-shirts and posters before the end of the day. And the vast majority will be purchased by his supporters.
 
Bucknut said:
Let’s just wait till tomorrow, when we actually see the charges. Keep in mind that at least three other entities have declined to prosecute: the feds, the FEC, and the previous DA, Cy Vance. Leads me to believe the case is tenuous at best, and unavoidably political. Bragg ran on the promise that he would get Trump. I assure you, prosecutors should not ideally be running for office on the promise of “getting” anyone.

At any rate, that mugshot will be the most widely shared photo in the history of the internet. It will be on t-shirts and posters before the end of the day. And the vast majority will be purchased by his supporters.
Click to expand...
Trump was indicted by a Grand Jury, which had 23 people on it. Bragg was not one of them. He had no say in the matter, only the 23 people on the Grand Jury had any say. And they said there was enough evidence to bring charges against Trump.
@Arb23 You admitted above that you have not followed this story, so why the idiot cartoons? Typical Trump supporter. Don't understand what is going on, but want to make it clear, whatever it is, it is not fair.
I really hope you people have donated your money to whatever outlandish reason he has asked for cash is to date. Notice he doesn't spend his own money, just yours.
 
Last edited:
Shrug...it's hard not to follow it right now - every news outlet is running it as THE most important story in the world right now ( it's not ). If it helps ...I think you got him this time. Lol. I'm just following along here for the laughs. I got tuned out way back when he was a Russian asset.
 
Shadowscape said:
Trump was indicted by a Grand Jury, which had 23 people on it. Bragg was not one of them. He had no say in the matter, only the 23 people on the Grand Jury had any say. And they said there was enough evidence to bring charges against Trump.
Click to expand...


You know the saying about indicting a ham sandwich, right? Indictments are easy. The rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury. They hear only what the prosecutor wants them to hear. They are never shown exculpatory evidence. There is no defense counsel present. Hearsay is totally admissible. Conviction will be considerably more difficult. Just sayin…
 
Shadowscape said:
Trump was indicted by a Grand Jury, which had 23 people on it. Bragg was not one of them. He had no say in the matter, only the 23 people on the Grand Jury had any say. And they said there was enough evidence to bring charges against Trump.
@Arb23 You admitted above that you have not followed this story, so why the idiot cartoons? Typical Trump supporter. Don't understand what is going on, but want to make it clear, whatever it is, it is not fair.
I really hope you people have donated your money to whatever outlandish reason he has asked for cash is to date. Notice he doesn't spend his own money, just yours.
Click to expand...
So if you were on the grand jury, how much evidence would you have needed to convict him? To me is sounds like you would say convict him, even if you had no solid evidence, just based on your opinion/thoughts of him. I can't imagine you would let him go even if you only had gray or hearsay evidence. Some on here would say convict him even if there was absolutely no evidence, just because they hate him.

I'm pretty sure it would be extremely easy to get a grand jury that thinks like you do, in that area. I think it only takes a simple majority too.
 
Last edited:
climbhightree said:
So if you were on the grand jury, how much evidence would you have needed to convict him? To me is sounds like you would say convict him, even if you had no solid evidence, just based on your opinion/thoughts of him. I can't imagine you would let him go even if you only had gray or hearsay evidence. Some on here would say convict him even if there was absolutely no evidence, just because they hate him.

I'm pretty sure it would be extremely easy to get a grand jury that thinks like you do, in that area. I think it only takes a simple majority too.
Click to expand...
The Grand Jury doesn't convict anyone. They recommend where they believe there is enough evidence to bring charges.
Federal law requires that a grand jury be selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division in which the federal grand jury convenes. Thus, all citizens have an equal opportunity and obligation to serve. Pursuant to law, the names of prospective grand jurors are drawn at random from lists of registered voters or lists of actual voters, or other sources when necessary, under procedures designed to ensure that all groups in the community will have a fair chance to serve. Those persons whose names have been drawn, and who are not exempt or excused from service, are summoned to appear for duty as grand jurors.
I do wish people spent the time to understand the laws before spouting off.
 
Shadowscape said:
The Grand Jury doesn't convict anyone. They recommend where they believe there is enough evidence to bring charges.
Federal law requires that a grand jury be selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division in which the federal grand jury convenes. Thus, all citizens have an equal opportunity and obligation to serve. Pursuant to law, the names of prospective grand jurors are drawn at random from lists of registered voters or lists of actual voters, or other sources when necessary, under procedures designed to ensure that all groups in the community will have a fair chance to serve. Those persons whose names have been drawn, and who are not exempt or excused from service, are summoned to appear for duty as grand jurors.
I do wish people spent the time to understand the laws before spouting off.
Click to expand...
Umm I know generally how the system works, but that wasnt the point of my post. Sorry I used the word "convict, which you got hung up on. I noticed you didnt answer my question, nice deflection. So how much evidence would you need to indict him? Would you have passed on the opportunity to indict him if you had no real evidence? Or how much would someone like rico need.
 
Last edited:
So how this plays out...if case is not dismissed outright due to corrupted DA, then:
1) If the jury pool is made up of democrats, then he's guilty.
2) If jury is not made of up of democrats, then he's likely found not guilty, and we move onto the next politically motivated case.

I think he should just plead "democrat", make a donation to the DNC in exchange for dropping the charges, and keep playing golf.
 
It will literally be impossible for him to find an impartial jury in NYC. Bragg is well aware of this fact. Look for a change of venue motion. Also look for the judge to deny it.
 
Bucknut said:
It will literally be impossible for him to find an impartial jury in NYC. Bragg is well aware of this fact. Look for a change of venue motion. Also look for the judge to deny it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. All part of the strategy. Good reminder just in case anyone actually thought this case was about "truth and justice". It's not.
 
Last edited:
Are we really pre-whining about poor Donny not getting a fair trail in NYC. Go ahead and name a place in America where he could find a truly impartial jury. It does not exist.

His alleged crimes were committed in NYC and it has been his home for most of his life so it only seems fitting and fair.
 
No whining here. Just stating the obvious...I hope our legal system retains its credibility during the process - that would be the worst outcome if it did not.


nopolitics.jpg
:LOL:
 
climbhightree said:
Umm I know generally how the system works, but that wasnt the point of my post. Sorry I used the word "convict, which you got hung up on. I noticed you didnt answer my question, nice deflection. So how much evidence would you need to indict him? Would you have passed on the opportunity to indict him if you had no real evidence? Or how much would someone like rico nee
Click to expand...
I believe that no one should ever be punished for a crime they did not commit, and this includes DJT. If the evidence supports conviction then send his ass to jail. If it doesn’t, then let him walk.
 
Bucknut said:
It will literally be impossible for him to find an impartial jury in NYC. Bragg is well aware of this fact. Look for a change of venue motion. Also look for the judge to deny it.
Click to expand...
Commit crime in NYC you will be tried by your peers which happen to be in NYC. Thats how it works. As someone with a law degree it is very disappointing for you to predetermine the outcome.
 
rico said:
I believe that no one should ever be punished for a crime they did not commit, and this includes DJT. If the evidence supports conviction then send his ass to jail. If it doesn’t, then let him walk.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. But we both know that people live in an alternate reality detached from facts. I have lost hope, no amount of obvious straight forward talk will even penetrate their bubble .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom