Fu*%face Von Clownstick

[rico]

once again spin and BS from YOU.. if you watch that clip he said... "you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do".. he's not saying he had the right to interfere with the election. He' saying the he was improperly indicted and what he did was not against the law. He's refering to the fact that the supreme court ruled in June that he can't be prosecuted for official duties as they petrtain to his election interferece case.

The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump, ruling that he has immunity for some of his conduct as president in his federal election interference case but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle for special counsel Jack Smith’s taking the case to trial.

If your gonna quote Trump at least have the decency to be accurate. And yes, Donny just admitted to interfering in the 2020 election (0:50).

 

[Daniel]

once again spin and BS from YOU.. if you watch that clip he said... "you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do".. he's not saying he had the right to interfere with the election.

This is the direct quote from Trump in the the interview which appears in both videos..
that is almost word for word... his exact words were "you get indicted for interfering in an election...

once again .. you and all the left wing pundits are taking his statement out of context... He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick. The way he said it doesn't sound good and is easy to miscontrue as you have done, but anyone with a clear mind and understanding of the full context of events can see what he meant.

Once again you are showing your lack of care for the truth. You'll just spew out any garbage you want into that keyboard. You may have missed your calling. With such a propencity for lying, you would have made a good politician.

The nice thing about tree work, is that physics doesn't lie... gravity doesn't lie... next time it gets you, remember that!

 

[Stumpsprouts]

He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick.

This this a very strange turn of logic. Do you think that it was the right thing to do to interfere in the election, ethically?

Or is it just that he had the right under this new law to do that, and we can agree that ethically that was wrong?

 

[rico]

This is the direct quote from Trump in the the interview which appears in both videos..
that is almost word for word... his exact words were "you get indicted for interfering in an election...

once again .. you and all the left wing pundits are taking his statement out of context... He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick. The way he said it doesn't sound good and is easy to miscontrue as you have done, but anyone with a clear mind and understanding of the full context of events can see what he meant.

Once again you are showing your lack of care for the truth. You'll just spew out any garbage you want into that keyboard. You may have missed your calling. With such a propencity for lying, you would have made a good politician.

The nice thing about tree work, is that physics doesn't lie... gravity doesn't lie... next time it gets you, remember that!

Since you clearly do not know the definition of a direct quote- A direct quote is a word-for-word reproduction of what someone else has said or written.

Your so called "direct quote from Trump" -

"you get indicted for election interference, which you had every right to do"

What Trump actually said, and his admission of interference-

"you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it"


And we will simply let your word salad speak for itself-

He's not claiming he had the right to interfere with the election. He's claiming he had the right to do what he did, as affirmed by the supreme court, and therefore the indictments are not going to stick. The way he said it doesn't sound good and is easy to miscontrue

 

[rico]

The nice thing about tree work, is that physics doesn't lie... gravity doesn't lie... next time it gets you, remember that!

I will once again kindly ask that you refrain from bringing my personal safety into a conversation. It is the 3rd or 4th time that you have done such a thing, and its fucking weird and creepy.

 

[Daniel]

This this a very strange turn of logic. Do you think that it was the right thing to do to interfere in the election, ethically?

Or is it just that he had the right under this new law to do that, and we can agree that ethically that was wrong?

He was indicted by a grand jury for election interference.. do you know what that means? It doesn't men he did it. It doesn't mean he was found guilty. It just means the the grand jury finds probable cause. That's like a preliminary hearing. Only the prosecution presents evidence. The defense is not allowed to present evidence. The standard to indict is 51% probability. And only more than half the jurors have to find that 51%.

Trump is presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Your statement assumes that he did interfere with the election. When you make such a statement, you are part of the problem. EVERYONE has to have all their rights all the time, or rights don't exist for anyone. You can't pick and chose who's rights can get violated as you see fit.

These are obviously political prosecutions. All while Bush and Cheyney are free as birds. And SMith has resorted to some unusual tricks with the grand jury, including forming a grand jury in Washington, which is then bringing charges in different states, and saying that the jurrors don't have to agree on which of the charges there is probable cause on.

Have you had any personal experience with DAs? They are low life garbage. They have no care for about guilt or innocence. They just want a conviction for their record and to justify their fat salaries. I have a buddy doing 10 years for a crime he didn't commit. I also have been falsely accused... At the preliminary hearing the judge up the lawbook and says "There's nothing in this book that says you can't steal your own property". I have the transcript. That's how fair the system is. Judges, DAs, cops... they can all rot in hell. Their violations of natural law is part of the reason this country is going down.

Bottom line is if you care about freedom... if you want to live in a free society, you have to support and uphold the freedoms of the people you don't like. That includes Trump. He has not been found guilty and deserves to be presumed innoncent until found guilty.

We don't have to fight and die for freedom like so many before us did. We just have to be cumulatively good enough to deserve to keep the freedoms earnd with the blood of patriots. Unfortunately that's not looking good right now. The way we treat each other on this forum is a reflection of the degradation of entire society. It's a shame.

If the grand jury finds probable cause to exist, then it will return a written statement of the charges called an "indictment." After that, the accused will go to trial. The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
No judge, public defender, or criminal defense attorney is in the grand jury room when the prosecutor is presenting evidence. The prosecutor explains the law to the jury and works with them to gather evidence and hear witness testimony.

A prosecutor must not mislead the grand jury and should remain fair following the rules of evidence. The prosecutor's office is not permitted to present evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. However, a grand jury can issue subpoenas and has broad power to see and hear almost anything the members would like.

The federal government is required to use grand juries for all felonies, though not misdemeanors, by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5] All states can use them, but only half actually do with the others using only preliminary hearings

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs grand juries. It requires grand juries to be composed of 16 to 23 members and that 12 members must concur in an indictment.[14][15] A grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if the probable cause standard has been met.


Note: probable cause standard just requires the belief that the likelihood that a crime was committed to be 51%, that is more liekly than not. This is a very low standard. Since, traditionally, the defense doesn't get a say, it's pretty easy to get a grand jury to indict someone in most cases. In fact, it's so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”

 

[Daniel]

 

[Matias]

That is mostly true Dan, but clarence thomas should have obviously recused himself, and the decision was split along party lines. Are you really trying to argue that dumpster and the far right haven't working as hard as possible over the last several cycles in order to be able to usurp the judicial system?

 

[rico]

He was indicted by a grand jury for election interference.. do you know what that means? It doesn't men he did it. It doesn't mean he was found guilty. It just means the the grand jury finds probable cause. That's like a preliminary hearing. Only the prosecution presents evidence. The defense is not allowed to present evidence. The standard to indict is 51% probability. And only more than half the jurors have to find that 51%.

Trump is presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Your statement assumes that he did interfere with the election. When you make such a statement, you are part of the problem. EVERYONE has to have all their rights all the time, or rights don't exist for anyone. You can't pick and chose who's rights can get violated as you see fit.

These are obviously political prosecutions. All while Bush and Cheyney are free as birds. And SMith has resorted to some unusual tricks with the grand jury, including forming a grand jury in Washington, which is then bringing charges in different states, and saying that the jurrors don't have to agree on which of the charges there is probable cause on.

Have you had any personal experience with DAs? They are low life garbage. They have no care for about guilt or innocence. They just want a conviction for their record and to justify their fat salaries. I have a buddy doing 10 years for a crime he didn't commit. I also have been falsely accused... At the preliminary hearing the judge up the lawbook and says "There's nothing in this book that says you can't steal your own property". I have the transcript. That's how fair the system is. Judges, DAs, cops... they can all rot in hell. Their violations of natural law is part of the reason this country is going down.

Bottom line is if you care about freedom... if you want to live in a free society, you have to support and uphold the freedoms of the people you don't like. That includes Trump. He has not been found guilty and deserves to be presumed innoncent until found guilty.

We don't have to fight and die for freedom like so many before us did. We just have to be cumulatively good enough to deserve to keep the freedoms earnd with the blood of patriots. Unfortunately that's not looking good right now. The way we treat each other on this forum is a reflection of the degradation of entire society. It's a shame.

If the grand jury finds probable cause to exist, then it will return a written statement of the charges called an "indictment." After that, the accused will go to trial. The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
No judge, public defender, or criminal defense attorney is in the grand jury room when the prosecutor is presenting evidence. The prosecutor explains the law to the jury and works with them to gather evidence and hear witness testimony.

A prosecutor must not mislead the grand jury and should remain fair following the rules of evidence. The prosecutor's office is not permitted to present evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. However, a grand jury can issue subpoenas and has broad power to see and hear almost anything the members would like.

The federal government is required to use grand juries for all felonies, though not misdemeanors, by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5] All states can use them, but only half actually do with the others using only preliminary hearings

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs grand juries. It requires grand juries to be composed of 16 to 23 members and that 12 members must concur in an indictment.[14][15] A grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if the probable cause standard has been met.


Note: probable cause standard just requires the belief that the likelihood that a crime was committed to be 51%, that is more liekly than not. This is a very low standard. Since, traditionally, the defense doesn't get a say, it's pretty easy to get a grand jury to indict someone in most cases. In fact, it's so easy in most cases that a former New York state chief judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”

I don’t know where to begin with this steaming pile of smelly dog dookie, but I will attempt it.

1. You ramble on about the rights of one man (Trump), but never mention or consider the tens of million of Americans whose constitutionally protected rights would have been stripped from them if Trump had somehow managed to be successful in his unlawful attempts to undo/overthrow the 2020 election.

2. Let’s say that your insane unAmerican notion that a sitting president has immunity from interfering in an election in which he is a candidate somehow holds water. Have you thought about whether this immunity will cover Donny’s cheating ass for his interference in state elections.. You know, place like Georgia where we have him on tape asking the Secretary of State to “find” him 11,780. Funny, but that just happens to be the exact number he needed to win the state? And let’s remember that Donny also ran one of his illegal fake elector schemes in Georgia. Ditto for all the other states like Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania where Trump attempted to pull off his fake elector scheme. Funny how they just all happen to be swing states.

3. Trump’s admission during the interview will most certainly be used against him so you might want to tell your cult leader to educate himself concerning A statement of a party opponent.

4. Who knew ’freeing your mind’ was code for being assimilated into the MAGA Cult? Enjoy the Kool-aid bro.

More to come.

 

[rico]

A statement of a party opponent for dummies

Starts at 0:40 mark

 

[Daniel]

when trump said "every right to do it".. what does the it refer to? He never said "I interfered in an election, and I had every right to do it"... he said he got indicted and had every right to do IT... Let the jury decide of it gets that far...

The larger point is that I doubt the majority of American people can explain or define what getting indicted means.... Most likely will confuse getting indicted with getting found guilty.

 

[rico]

Tr

when trump said "every right to do it".. what does the it refer to? He never said "I interfered in an election, and I had every right to do it"... he said he got indicted and had every right to do IT... Let the jury decide of it gets that far...

The larger point is that I doubt the majority of American people can explain or define what getting indicted means.... Most likely will confuse getting indicted with getting found guilty.

Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers in the criminal court of New York, and he is now a convicted felon 34 times over. How are you gonna MAGAspain that away? and before you even get started let’s remember these crimes were committed before he was president.

How about the nearly half a billion dollar judgement against him for defrauding the people of New York with his decades long tax and bank fraud? Splain away.

And for the last time-

“you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you had every right to do it”. This is both an admission of interference and a giant tell as to what his defense will be. Once again I ask you to show me where the constitution grants a president the power to interfere in an election that he is a candidate in. It’s nonsensical so good luck with that.

Lets take your deeply flawed logic and run with it. What is to stop Biden from going all in an making himself the winner of the 2024 election. He is covered by presidential immunity after all? Since Joe will be way too old or dead in 2028 he could simply install Hunter as our new dictator, I mean president. Presidential immunity and all?

 

[Daniel]

 

[rico]

A Bro Rogan vid? Congrats, you are an official MAGA cult member.

I just realized that a TV star was defending another TV star. I know it’s sounds crazy but maybe the Supreme Court should make it mandatory that our entire government be run by former TV stars? I am pretty sure its not in the constitution, but clearly they don’t give a fuck.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

A cartographer for the FLorida State Parks turned whistleblower on Ron Desantis and was fired. The details of the skullduggery is in the article.

This has a feeling [to me] of Desantis continuing to run Florida as his kingdom, orm a dictatorship from Day 1

Florida state parks whistleblower fired after exposing Ron DeSantis’s plans

James Gaddis tanked Florida governor’s secretive scheme to build hotels and golf courses over acres of preserved land

www.theguardian.com

 

[rico]

There is certainly a lot of authoritarian/dictator tendencies within the current version of the GOP, and Ron Desanctimonious is a shining example.

 

[Daniel]

Here's Kamala saying that speech needs obversight and regulation... without the first ammendment, none of the others matter much...

 

[Daniel]

 

[rico]

Here's Kamala saying that speech needs obversight and regulation... without the first ammendment, none of the others matter much...

Did you actually watch this vid Danny? The title of the vid is Fact check "Kamala says she'd shut down X if she wins" but the host literally admits that Kamala never called for the shutting down of X. What the host does says is "thats what THEY want to do, We all know this." Just another example of MAGA creating a boogieman where one doesn't exist..Kinda like MAGA claiming there is a great need to pass legislation to prevent non-citizens from voting. It has been illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal election for over a century and that's why it is an extremely rare occurrence and a complete non issue..None of this stops MAGA from creating another boogieman for their cult members to be afraid of..

Lets also remember who banned Trump from twitter and why. It was twitter who permanently suspended Trump for "risk of further incitement of violence" and his never ending falsehoods. Fast forward to 2024 and Elon the new owner of Twitter (X) is posting deepfake vids attacking Kamala . Probably all just part of Donny and Elons quid pro quo deal. Donny agrees to a 180% flip-flop on his view of EV's (which he admits on camera), and Elon backs Trump and attacks Kamala.

Donald Trump admits EV flip-flop was a quid pro quo to secure Elon Musk’s support

Elon Musk’s endorsement of Trump has further driven a split in the Tesla community, with data on Monday showing customers are fleeing the brand in Europe.

finance.yahoo.com

Musk posts Communist AI image of Kamala Harris, X users strike back

Kamala Harris's fake photo as communist dictator has been doing rounds on the Internet, all courtesy Elon Musk.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[rico]

Donny is flip flopping like a fish on a line..His newest version of the Arlington event? Kamala made it all up, and the Army is lying. Okay.

Trump Calls Arlington Controversy ‘Made Up Story’—But Army Says Trump Staffer ‘Pushed’ Worker

The Army said a Trump campaign staffer “abruptly pushed aside” a female Arlington worker who attempted to stop his campaign from taking photos and video.

www.forbes.com