ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
DILF Stormy on the stand today lmao reap, you orange disgrace
Insider trading was nominated and clearly shouldn't be a crime.
Corporate taxation crimes, accounting related crimes shouldn't exist as corporate taxation shouldnt exist.
Money laundering shouldn't be a crime unless related to financing of state enemies/terrorists, because there shouldn't be any money to launder to begin with and there wouldn't be if the state couldn't make it illegal to sell stuff people want and so on (and taxes weren't bas
lol.
I’m sad for him , he was born in the wrong century .
He should of been born in 1850 .
Society was so much better then ….
I actually quite like the idea of professional juries in general. Certainly seems better than entrusting life or liberty decisions to 12 people too dumb or apathetic to duck jury service.
Juries work when they can exist as intended.
1) as a check on prosecution 2) by actual peers (same status people, who live in the shoes of the defendant, same income and education range!!!!) 3) for crimes that aren't too technical (like they weren't in 1650) and abstract 4) when they can be impartial (IE they don't know the defendant or plaintiff nor are involved in the topic being judged personally)
But for ex presidents or anyway bigwig national politicians, tv, cinema, music personalities and the like, it's a joke to think you can have impartial juries
Juries work when they can exist as intended.
1) as a check on prosecution 2) by actual peers (same status people, who live in the shoes of the defendant, same income and education range!!!!) 3) for crimes that aren't too technical (like they weren't in 1650) and abstract 4) when they can be impartial (IE they don't know the defendant or plaintiff nor are involved in the topic being judged personally)
But for ex presidents or anyway bigwig na
You're going to need a pre-trial trial just to decide whether the actual trial fits your criteria for jury suitability.
You're going to need a pre-trial trial just to decide whether the actual trial fits your criteria for jury suitability.
A motion from defense or prosecution easily dismissed by the judge in 99.9% of cases, given the applicability will be very limited.
Then jurisprudence will develop setting somewhat precise boundaries for the application of the waiver of random-civilian jury trials on case of exceptional notoriety.
And it could be easy the case that the easiest solution would be to have a 3 judges panel selected from the state or the federal district as jury.
But unfortunately for the USA you would need to amend the constitution for that to happen
Insider trading was nominated and clearly shouldn't be a crime.
Corporate taxation crimes, accounting related crimes shouldn't exist as corporate taxation shouldnt exist.
Money laundering shouldn't be a crime unless related to financing of state enemies/terrorists, because there shouldn't be any money to launder to begin with and there wouldn't be if the state couldn't make it illegal to sell stuff people want and so on (and taxes weren't bas
So in actually , u don’t believe in government creating a society with equal of opportunity is a goood thing .
If u did you obviously see that only the most privileged have access to insider trading and money laundering….
And why corporations shouldn’t pays taxes ?
Aren’t they being protected by the police , laws , judicial system , profiting from good infrastructure, etc ?
Who will be pay for all of this ?
Maybe u should go try to open in business in countries where the rule of law isn’t an important factor , like Haiti -> good luck …
A motion from defense or prosecution easily dismissed by the judge in 99.9% of cases, given the applicability will be very limited.
Then jurisprudence will develop setting somewhat precise boundaries for the application of the waiver of random-civilian jury trials on case of exceptional notoriety.
And it could be easy the case that the easiest solution would be to have a 3 judges panel selected from the state or the federal district as jury.
The criterion for who exactly qualifies as a peer of the defendant would be the subject of countless pre-trial arguments. I don't think it's practicable. E.g. trump would argue that he can be tried only by a jury of 12 republican ex-presidents.
The criterion for who exactly qualifies as a peer of the defendant would be the subject of countless pre-trial arguments. I don't think it's practicable. E.g. trump would argue that he can be tried only by a jury of 12 republican ex-presidents.
Oh the peer criterion is inapplicable in today society where social status is clearly much more fluid than in the past.
I was just listing why historically juries made a lot of sense.
For politicians btw the Italian system until we amended the constitution in that part in the late 80s, was for our SCOTUS-equivalent to judge alleged crimes of prime ministers and ministers committed while in charge (so for trump the 3 other cases would qualify but not the hush money case).
But a favourable vote of Parliament is still necessary to proceed with the indictment
Interesting politico article on why evangelics like trump
I don't really care much what adults who have imaginary friends think.
Also explains why they have quite a hankering for paedophilia and protecting it.
It's that damned lust!
if you think those kiddos are good looking now, just wait until they become adults!
but fwiw the correct term isn't pedophilia
epstein island and the bros were ephebophiliacs
she is young for sure, but to call that pedophilia is just wrong
Ah I was going for a more broad approach, like supporting lowering age of marriage to 12, or one that might be getting close to Trump's heart/other heart - legal marriage between 1st cousins. Family values!
Beyond hilarious how the people who cry that trump is being persecuted and can’t get a fair trial will obviously say nothing about trump’s hand picked appointee intentionally sabotaging the only slam dunk against him
except I pointed that out very clearly as something that is truly insane
Speaking of possible conflicts of interest, the judge of the classified document case, Aileen Cannon, has been nominated by Trump (????) to that seat, it's truly incredible to think that American rules allow her to judge Trump himself.
I am not a bad faith leftist
Not sure I even remotely mentioned your name, chief
Stop telling on yourself
sure sure 2 pages we discuss that he can't have an impartial jury (imho) in NYS, and I. the only one defending that hypothesis with everyone else claiming randos can objectively detach themselves from the personal opinions they have on the most controversial individual in politics of the last 20+ years, but suuuuuuurely you were not sub tweeting me (except you were, but I had the receipts to prove I am coherent in my stances)
Bro I have you on ignore. I only click ‘view post’ when I’m 99.9999% sure you’re addressing something I said that I may as well read
I promise you your insanity has been white noise for a while. I couldn’t even bring myself to keep reading this last post beyond ‘sure’
So what do you think should be done with famous people, who no one can be impartial about, accused of a crime?
I know you badly want attention so I’m sorry if you’re hurt by these posts I made you might report
So what do you think should be done with famous people, who no one can be impartial about, accused of a crime?
I literally wrote it in a previous reply.
waive jury trial and use judges in cases of exceptional notoriety.
iirc that's called "bench ruling" and usually can only be had if the defense asks for it (maybe only in some states?), or in a few rare cases otherwise, and for federal criminal prosecution it would need a constitutional amendment as the 6th a. currently guarantees a jury trial for federal crimes
I literally wrote it in a previous reply.
waive jury trial and use judges in cases of exceptional notoriety.
iirc that's called "bench ruling" and usually can only be had if the defense asks for it (maybe only in some states?), or in a few rare cases otherwise, and for federal criminal prosecution it would need a constitutional amendment as the 6th a. currently guarantees a jury trial for federal crimes
As far as I am aware the defense can always ask for a bench trial, so if Trump has elected to have a jury trial, he obviously feels that is in his interest.
I literally wrote it in a previous reply.
waive jury trial and use judges in cases of exceptional notoriety.
iirc that's called "bench ruling" and usually can only be had if the defense asks for it (maybe only in some states?), or in a few rare cases otherwise, and for federal criminal prosecution it would need a constitutional amendment as the 6th a. currently guarantees a jury trial for federal crimes
Why do you think judges could be impartial about someone they know, if no one else can be?
