Fu*%face Von Clownstick

[Arb23]

Must say, that's refreshing to hear, especially on a forum thread titled "Fu*%face Von Clownstick".

 

[owScott]

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.

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.

 

[owScott]

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.

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 .

 

[Bucknut]

We’ve all lost hope my man. That’s a real problem.

 

[owScott]

We’ve all lost hope my man. That’s a real problem.

Yeah sucks to feel that way. Lets not forget Trump did alot to insite political warfare in this country. Trump has insulted, attacked and created alot of enemies in this country that goes far beyound just disagreeing with some conservative policy. He is no victim. You know the old saying about messing with the bull.

 

[treegongfu]

It takes a lot of arrogance to condemn half your fellow countrymen as morally irredeemable and mentally deficient.

The Democratic party appears very corrupt, racist and has an insatiable lust for war.

Could it be that these people just see things differently than you?

 

[Arb23]

Interesting - Michael Isikoff just published a story with details about the charges. Same reporter that worked to start the russian collusion hoax. Coincidence? Nope. These clowns lost their credibility a long time ago. What an embarrassment for the court system. Not off to a good start.
Edit: But it may be legal if Judge unsealed it? Thought it was sealed until arraignment? Dunno - strategy?

 

[cerviarborist]

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.

Unfortunately, it's much simpler to just troll.

 

[Shadowscape]

Dunno

Absolutely fucking spot on. You "Dunno" (sic).

 

[rico]

Interesting - Michael Isikoff just published a story with details about the charges. Same reporter that worked to start the russian collusion hoax. Coincidence? Nope. These clowns lost their credibility a long time ago. What an embarrassment for the court system. Not off to a good start.
Edit: But it may be legal if Judge unsealed it? Thought it was sealed until arraignment? Dunno - strategy?

https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-n...cs-campaigns-5e833a62e9492f6a66624b7920cc846a

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/9035...aul-manafort-shared-campaign-info-with-russia

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...trump-was-wrong-mueller-was-right-ncna1237743

 

[JCB]

TDS flaring up again boys? This only makes Trump stronger and more popular while making Dems look like the party of neo-nazi snowflakes they are.....Thanks for the help!

The true measures of intelligence, maturity, and patriotism are the abilities to admit to yourself that you are mistaken, and to adjust your thinking to the evidence at hand--all of which states that trump is not worthy of your rabid defenses of him, or of ever holding public office again (he never was).

People still supporting trump at this point have either lost their ability to discern right from wrong, discarded their moral compasses, or are being purposefully hateful and un-American. Yes, we do have the right to decide who we elect, but only when the candidates on both sides are qualified and generally ethical. We do not however have the right to promote a man who continues to work toward destroying our country, has been sued 4,000 times (let's assume that folks or businesses were cheated or otherwise harmed in every case), and lied 30,000 times while in office.

To me, standing by that man makes those supporters accomplices, just ask Lindsey Graham--who, believe me, is crying for himself, not trump. What Lindsey (also an immoral, self-serving tool) forgets is that trump will waste him when it suits his purposes--just as he will do to his children and his supporters.

Again, those who cannot adjust their thinking accordingly are lost and are no friends to society, their families, or the USA. While I don't hate you, your hate for those who condemn trump (with facts enough to fill an encyclopedia) is palpable, misguided, and unhealthy--for you and everyone else. If we wish to be charitable about it, we can all simply agree that trump is psychologically ill--as all the evidence confirms. Perhaps that position is more palatable to those having trouble pulling away from him. Call it what you will but please just do it before it's too late.

PS: If you found it impossible to be swayed by any of the arguments above, it only proves that you do suffer from the myopia described therein.

 

[JCB]

None of what is going on with Trump is about sex he may or may not have had with anybody. It is all about him falsifying his financial records to avoid paying taxes to the IRS and the State of New York. He is a tax cheat. Plain and simple, that is what this is about. He lies and he cheats, and he tells more lies to get people with weak minds (if the shoe fits, wear it) to follow him and donate money to him, just like a TV televangelist. He knows it works for them, so he makes it work for himself.
He is a worthless piece of shit as a human being.

And I would add the crime of election interference as he did all this to hide his behavior immediately before an election. Anybody remember Gary Hart?

 

[JCB]

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.

The real question is how much evidence would YOU need to convict him, if not for this then for all of his other crimes. It seems to me that he really could shoot someone in Times Square and you'd all be OK with it.

 

[Arb23]

Again, those who cannot adjust their thinking accordingly are lost and are no friends to society, their families, or the USA.

People still supporting trump at this point have either lost their ability to discern right from wrong, discarded their moral compasses, or are being purposefully hateful and un-American.

whoa...had to check what country I was in there for a second....felt like I tripped and fell into some communist trash heap...

While I respect your OPINION - it's nothing more than that. So let me fix the last line for you:

PS: If you found it impossible to be swayed by any of the arguments opinions above, it only proves that you do suffer from the myopia described therein.

In other words: unless you agree with my opinion(s), you are un-american, are lost, and have no place in society. Because I am right, and you are wrong.

This is a big part of the problem. Happens on both sides, to be sure. And it's sad.

PS: we agree on Lindsey - he's a chump lol

 

[JCB]

whoa...had to check what country I was in there for a second....felt like I tripped and fell into some communist trash heap...

While I respect your OPINION - it's nothing more than that. So let me fix the last line for you:

PS: If you found it impossible to be swayed by any of the arguments opinions above, it only proves that you do suffer from the myopia described therein.

In other words: unless you agree with my opinion(s), you are un-american, are lost, and have no place in society. Because I am right, and you are wrong.

This is a big part of the problem. Happens on both sides, to be sure. And it's sad.

PS: we agree on Lindsey - he's a chump lol

Yes, you're absolutely right: If folks disagree with my underlying premise--that having a closed mind is harmful, that ignoring reams of documented facts is myopic, and that doing what is right for the Country (education, health care, clean water, social-support systems) should be the ultimate goal--I do contend that they "have no place in society."

"Society" connotes an interplay of ideas that is meant to promote the best things for all of us. When I call for that type of clear-headed, honest interaction, I hear only that I am the hardheaded, unfairly-discriminating one. That type of straw-man response--used by authoritarians around the world and by trump throughout his life--is more dangerous than trump, you, or me, for it is the thing that will end this society.

So, no, I do not respect other's opinions when they have ignored reality, criminal actions, lies, and the foundational tenets of democracy when developing their arguments. In this case--when I implore others to think about their motives and to consider facts and opposing opinions--your response is to say that it "happens on both sides." Who, exactly, are you talking about? One side says that the horrors and Constitutional threats that occurred on January 6th are despicable and cannot be allowed to happen again; the other side calls January 6th a "picnic" and visits and sings along with the insurrectionists. Meanwhile, one cannot logically condemn Graham while speaking on behalf of the man who turned him into a quivering imbecile. And you ask me to give those two arguments equal weight! I'm proud to say I cannot.

By reading my opinions through a lens of knee-jerk suppositions about Democrats, liberals, or whomever they dislike or distrust, folks disable the part of their minds that can synthesize new opinions. There's right and there's wrong: Many patriots and great thinkers much smarter than us say so. I admit that I'm wrong on a regular basis (try it, it's actually quite cathartic); however, when my thinking aligns with every ethical, reasonable person whom I respect, I make no apologies.

So, I'm done with this "conversation," as you have proved that the last sentence in my previous post was warranted--and I honestly feel no pleasure in that. I will add one more thought: What exactly is the "nationalists'" plan for after they've destroyed America. I believe it will greatly resemble their plans for a post-ObamaCare world--meaning that they have no plan, other than hate and chaos.

 

[Arb23]

Well, clearly you are right - no one can logically argue any of those opinions.
PS: you mis-spelled "authoritarians" - it's spelled "people living in a democracy that might disagree with me"

 

[Shadowscape]

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.

Well, when you take 23 random people and they are presented with the evidence, and they vote to indite that person on 34 felony counts I would say there was a preponderance of evidence to do so.
I would look at the evidence and make my decision based on what I saw. If it looked like the person was guilty of committing a crime I would vote to indite.
I hate Trump, but I would not vote to indite him because I hate him, if that is what you are going after. These jurors are not Democrats that want to hang Trump, they are 23 random people from New York. That has to tell you something right there. And 34 counts?

 

[Shadowscape]

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.

Once again you have no clue what you are talking about, so why do you persist in talking?
Trump's attorneys will be making decisions as to who is going to be on the jury, as will the prosecution. If there is any Democrats on there, it will be because Trump's attorney allowed them to be on there.
You just need to shut the fuck up until you learn how the legal system works and quit making an ass of yourself. Ops, too late.

 

[Arb23]

Once again you have no clue what you are talking about, so why do you persist in talking?
Trump's attorneys will be making decisions as to who is going to be on the jury, as will the prosecution. If there is any Democrats on there, it will be because Trump's attorney allowed them to be on there.
You just need to shut the fuck up until you learn how the legal system works and quit making an ass of yourself. Ops, too late.

lol...must have hit a nerve...you're right - the case outcome comes down to jury selection - but I did miss the part about the change of venue request which will likely be denied. That should come right after the first dismissal request. The rest should be pretty much on target.

 

[rico]

Why would the case be dismissed, or have a change of venue?