THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

[BigMark]

You are a quintessential cracker, a redneck swamp dweller if you will.

[rothschild]

Donovan would be a far better choice, sally. A virtue-signalling liberal of niggardly intellect that knows just what the negro needs, in spite of having no idea as to what their needs actually are. His qualifications are impeccable.

[BigMark]

His leather elbow patches were the first clue.

[Duchess]

Popcorn?  *shakes bag*

[Clang McFly]

Popcorn?  *shakes bag*

[Duchess]

It's being reported that Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the grand jury that the night before trump's last day in office she saw her boss, Mark Meadows, trump's chief of staff, take 1000's of classified documents at the direction of trump. This is in addition to her testimony that he was using burn bags and the fireplace in his office to burn documents. If convicted, this is a serious amount of prison time and incentive for him to roll on trump.

There are 7 charges in trump's indictment. We won't know what they are until Tuesday, but there is some thought that we may find out sooner because of all the bullshit trump and his defenders/supporters are putting out there, many of these people are lawmakers in DC who are attorneys in their own right and who know better. They are a fucking disgrace. To be clear, grand juries indict, no one else.

I am delighted to see trump indicted AGAIN, but this is not a great day for our country. It's a friggin' disgrace. If I never hear the word unprecedented again it will be too soon.

I believe that the special counsel would not have taken the grand jury's recommendation unless he felt he has an airtight case.

[Duchess]

...and just to remind everyone, Reality Winner got 5 years in the slammer for having ONE document. Meadows had thousands, trump had hundreds and spent years lying, denying and hiding.

[Duchess]

trump put more effort into keeping his taxes hidden than he did in protecting our nation's secrets. "This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me."

[rothschild]

Grand juries are all about politics. Always. They do not serve the interests of justice -- ever. In this particular instance it's about creating the appearance of nonpartisanship.

Trump may be guilty of what the indictment alleges but it's ignorant to assume that it's credible, because all that was presented to the GJ was what the prosecution wanted to present.

[Duchess]

Aren't grand juries chosen from jury pool?

The evidence of trump's crimes is in the indictment. Some of the top secret documents were from the Department of Defense and CIA that had information about our nuclear programs, foreign defense, weapon capabilities and our military vulnerabilities. 

"trump may be guilty of what the indictment acknowledges" Shiiiit.  

[rothschild]

Aren't grand juries chosen from jury pool?

The evidence of trump's crimes is in the indictment. Some of the top secret documents were from the Department of Defense and CIA that had information about our nuclear programs, foreign defense, weapon capabilities and our military vulnerabilities. 

"trump may be guilty of what the indictment acknowledges" Shiiiit.  

Evidence presented cannot be fairly judged in the absence of rebuttal, which is why we have trials. Grand juries are purely political devices for creating the appearance of impartiality with those who do not understand that there is no judicial expectation for it. "Justice" is inherently political, and consequently corrupt. If people were honest about this we might be able to fix it, but that would require them to acknowledge being ignorant, which is a very tall order.

[Duchess]

Oh my god just stop. How can you stand being in your own head.

[Duchess]

Damn shame I can't cram all this in Maggot's face.

[rothschild]

Oh my god just stop. How can you stand being in your own head.

What does that statement say about you?

I could tell you, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

[Duchess]

What does that statement say about you?

I could tell you, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

rothschild, I would never presume to tell you or anyone else posting that you should self censor. My god.

[cannongal]

 all that was presented to the GJ was what the prosecution wanted to present.

I thought the grand jury's job was to decide whether there's enough evidence to prosecute.    I mean,  I'm probably wrong but it's my understanding that the prosecution doesn't have to present any 'rebuttal ' evidence.  The grand jury is just there to decide 'yes, there's enough evidence that we think the defendant should stand trial' or 'no, there's not enough evidence  to waste taxpayer dollars '   meh-high school civics was 30 years ago.

[Duchess]

I thought the grand jury's job was to decide whether there's enough evidence to prosecute.    I mean,  I'm probably wrong but it's my understanding that the prosecution doesn't have to present any 'rebuttal ' evidence.  The grand jury is just there to decide 'yes, there's enough evidence that we think the defendant should stand trial' or 'no, there's not enough evidence  to waste taxpayer dollars '   meh-high school civics was 30 years ago.

You're absolutely right. It's the (Florida) grand jury's job to hear witnesses and to determine whether there is enough evidence to charge an individual. It rarely, if ever, hears both sides, it's not their job to listen to any rebuttal.

[rothschild]

What does that statement say about you?

I could tell you, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

rothschild, I would never presume to tell you or anyone else posting that you should self censor. My god.

That's not what I meant.

[Duchess]

It's okay to insult me, rothschild. I can handle it. I won't clutch my mom's pearls. I won't be pissed off & I surely wouldn't delete your content. I don't have the expectation that you or anyone else agree with me and the one thing I really don't want in Mock is for us all to be like minded.

[rothschild]

 all that was presented to the GJ was what the prosecution wanted to present.

I thought the grand jury's job was to decide whether there's enough evidence to prosecute.    I mean,  I'm probably wrong but it's my understanding that the prosecution doesn't have to present any 'rebuttal ' evidence.  The grand jury is just there to decide 'yes, there's enough evidence that we think the defendant should stand trial' or 'no, there's not enough evidence  to waste taxpayer dollars '   meh-high school civics was 30 years ago.

You're absolutely right. It's the (Florida) grand jury's job to hear witnesses and to determine whether there is enough evidence to charge an individual. It rarely, if ever, hears both sides, it's not their job to listen to any rebuttal.

Which is why a preliminary hearing better serves the interest of justice. Why should the process be conducted in secret, without the participation of the defendant?