Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great news for Trump...even the kangaroo court is admitting he had nothing to do with it.
Once again, not quite what was determined in court. The jurors basically said that rioters could not use Trump as an excuse.
Got that?
Quote:
One juror told CNN after the verdict that jurors only considered whether Thompson was a "willing participant."... The juror added that they "were just judging the case on its merits. I don't think anyone thought about Donald Trump, even though clearly a lot of people have feelings."
Do you have proof to your thinking of 2 plausible answers that’ll hold up in court to “get him”?
#1: Absolutely not, I don't claim to have proof to implicate nor exonerate him. That is where we all stand, we may have an opinion or a talking head's opinion but none of us know all the information from that day yet.
#2: The useful idiot part would be Trump's Defense, not for prosecution, Congress, or other bodies to prove. Trump's Defense would make the case that Trump was just an innocent bystander who was used for his influence by bad actors if they deemed it nessessary, again a Defense Argument.
#1: Absolutely not, I don't claim to have proof to implicate nor exonerate him. That is where we all stand, we may have an opinion or a talking head's opinion but none of us know all the information from that day yet.
#2: The useful idiot part would be Trump's Defense, not for prosecution, Congress, or other bodies to prove. The Defense would make a case that Trump was just an innocent bystander who was used for his influence by bad actors, again a Defense Argument.
No defense needed. Innocent until proven guilty, and there’s no proof after 15+ months…just feelings, assumptions, etc…
No defense needed. Innocent until proven guilty, and there’s no proof after 15+ months…just feelings, assumptions, etc…
Your statement is an assumption. Is 15 months the arbitrary cutoff for all investigations? Is it 16 months? What is the cutoff? And if 15 months is a cut off then is it the cut-off for all investigations into politicians?
Your statement is an assumption. Is 15 months the arbitrary cutoff for all investigations? Is it 16 months? What is the cutoff? And if 15 months is a cut off then is it the cut-off for all investigations into politicians?
Your thinking is an assumption. Nope, a 15+ month investigation of turning up zilch is just the current timeframe. Dems will continue to investigate and continue to come up with nothing just like the last 5+ years.
I think the jury did not agree with the Republican defendant that he was not guilty because whatever he did was at the behest of Trump.
So the jury went against the Democrats who have been stating such for the last year+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
"TDS" is a term used by those who explain away all Trump failings
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
Well, the trial certainly put on the record many things done by Trump. Trump did not come off very well. Trump was not on trial so impartiality really does not involve him.
It isn't hard to come off looking bad if you have someone talking bad about you and not being challenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
In a jury trial? You wrong. It was the defendant saying that Trump had done wrong. If he claims the judge was prejudiced against Trump, so what?
Appeals are made when the verdict doesn't go the defendant's way but rarely are made on grounds of the actual verdict especially if it is a jury trial. They are made on actions the judge did(or did not) make during the trial. If he showed the same bias and prejudice during the trial that is 100% something the defense would use as a basis for appeal.
And yes I did say "IF" as I have not read the entire transcript of the trial(and doubt you have either), and have no plans to. But if there is something there you can be sure that the defense attorneys will bring it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
The judge was commenting on evidence educed at trial. He gets to do that.
Yes, but did his bias influence what evidence was allowed/not allowed...He doesn't get to that.
Your thinking is an assumption. Nope, a 15+ month investigation of turning up zilch is just the current timeframe. Dems will continue to investigate and continue to come up with nothing just like the last 5+ years.
They may, they may not. Like most Congressional investigations it will be a long process but the findings will be published so we will all find out together. I see no problem with the current ongoing process given this is how all congressional investigations do.
In fact, I cannot think of one congressional investigation that was short. Iran Contra was long, Clinton was long, Bengazi was long, Trump was long, am I missing a short one?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
