10-03-2023, 02:05 PM
|
THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
|
10-03-2023, 03:01 PM
10-04-2023, 04:57 AM
(10-04-2023, 12:23 AM)sally Wrote: You need to stop watching that dumb shit. Dumb shit? Those are your kind of people. That's what you like. Ewww. So fucking gross, Sally. ![[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Zy3rKpW.png)
10-04-2023, 11:19 AM
(10-04-2023, 04:57 AM)Duchess Wrote:(10-04-2023, 12:23 AM)sally Wrote: You need to stop watching that dumb shit. In that case I can go and find a million videos of liberal Biden supporting freaks and I guess those are your kind of people. I have to go out, but I’ll be back later with tons of moronic videos of people from “your team”. 
10-05-2023, 12:49 PM
 Kelley shilled for Trump like a good retired military man . . . until he realized he was not in command. Just like Cohen. Fucking bigger cry-babies than the Donald. I can't stop drawing the comparison between the Trump trial characters and an attempt to proffer the American public a sophomoric Billions episode. Trump - Bobby Axelrod James - Chuck Rhoades Engoron - Adam DeGiuilio And am still waiting to see the monetary damages and victims who suffered by Trump's alleged fraud.
10-06-2023, 08:17 AM
I'd like to add that in regards to him bleating "I don't even get a jury" is his lawyers fault. They had the opportunity to request a trial by jury and didn't do so.
10-06-2023, 09:36 AM
(10-06-2023, 08:17 AM)Duchess Wrote: I'd like to add that in regards to him bleating "I don't even get a jury" is his lawyers fault. They had the opportunity to request a trial by jury and didn't do so. Yeah . . . it wasn't as simple as merely checking a box . . . as is being reported and repeated. Or a simple "request" for a trial, by jury. Prosecution under this statute does not include the absolute right to trial by jury. It was a brilliant and strategic move (using this statute) to bring charges against him . . . and legally deny him of this right. Again . . . another example of the "Economy of Truth" syndrome when reporting (spinning) on Trump. Nice try.
10-06-2023, 11:30 AM
You present that as if he were tricked, he was not. He wasn't denied anything. As with everyone, he has rights. His attorneys didn't do their due diligence, THAT'S what it comes down to.
10-06-2023, 03:38 PM
(10-06-2023, 02:06 PM)BigMark Wrote: How would you even know that to be 100% factual? That his attorneys didn't do their due diligence?
10-06-2023, 06:21 PM
(10-06-2023, 11:30 AM)Duchess Wrote: You present that as if he were tricked, he was not. He wasn't denied anything. As with everyone, he has rights. His attorneys didn't do their due diligence, THAT'S what it comes down to. No. That is not true. This proceeding, by default, is a bench trial. By the very nature of the statutory charge and proceeding, he is automatically denied a trial by jury. In the majority of criminal trials, the defendant has the right and choice of bench or jury . . . jury trial is automatic. Not this one. Pray tell . . . what omitted due diligence would guarantee, that the defendant, would be guaranteed a trial by jury? If you are to believe, as the judge stated, there were two boxes on the "form" . . . one for jury trial and another for bench. Again, if you believe the judge, he stated neither was checked. So . . . if NEITHER box was checked, what gave the judge the authority to proceed . . . as a bench trial . . . without clarification . . . from either the prosecution or defense? Keep spinning!
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: F7ojBAnWYAAycvq?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7ojBAnWYAAycvq?format=jpg&name=large)
![[Image: F7ojBAmWoAAJ06_?format=jpg&name=medium]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7ojBAmWoAAJ06_?format=jpg&name=medium)
![[Image: F7q_GxOWcAI8tpO?format=jpg&name=medium]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7q_GxOWcAI8tpO?format=jpg&name=medium)