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?
I don't think that an institution of learning should necessarily have to do things the same way as civilian court of law. They're not sending anyone to prison. Even military courts don't follow have to follow the same rules as civilian courts, as they realize that there may at times be valid reasons to protect the institution over the charged individual, and they do send people to prison.
When punishing people in extreme ways absolutely yes. They are robbing people of tens of thousands of dollars (if they punish someone who isn't guilty).
If tuition was refunded completly then you might have a point.
But even in that case the idea that anonymous (to the defendant) accusations can ever have a place anywhere in society for me is abhorrent
Trump keeps unintentionally revealing his low opinion of Black people
leaning into an outlaw persona by affiliating with people accused or convicted of crimes
Trump spoke alongside rappers Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow, who are
facing counts of conspiracy to commit murder and weapons possession.
praised Sheff G’s jewel-encrusted grill, quipping ironically,
“I got to get my teeth like that” — all while pushing a tough-on-crime message.
promised to commute the life sentence of
Ross Ulbricht, operator of the black market Silk Road website.
posed for a photo with rapper Afroman, who pleaded guilty to punching a woman at one of his concerts
using sneakers and fried chicken to appeal to Black voters
racist stereotypes he seems to embrace and seems to
believe will provide him with currency among Black voters
In Trump's estimation, this simplistic deployment of tropes
should help him overcome most Black voters’ revulsion at Trump’s
white nationalism and the extreme ideological conservatism of the GOP.
When punishing people in extreme ways absolutely yes. They are robbing people of tens of thousands of dollars (if they punish someone who isn't guilty).
If tuition was refunded completly then you might have a point.
But even in that case the idea that anonymous (to the defendant) accusations can ever have a place anywhere in society for me is abhorrent
Eh, losing tuition money isn't like going to prison. I'm sure you think employers should be able to fire someone for any reason, but that can take away your income and retirement benefits, and harm your future job prospects as well.
Do you think military courts should have to follow all the same rules as civilian ones?
Eh, losing tuition money isn't like going to prison. I'm sure you think employers should be able to fire someone for any reason, but that can take away your income and retirement benefits, and harm your future job prospects as well.
Do you think military courts should have to follow all the same rules as civilian ones?
For crimes unrelated to conduct in military missions yes actually. While waging war or otherwise being militaries in active duties the procedures should be the same, but the applied law different
Trump keeps unintentionally revealing his low opinion of Black people
leaning into an outlaw persona by affiliating with people accused or convicted of crimes
Trump spoke alongside rappers Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow, who are
facing counts of conspiracy to commit murder and weapons possession.
praised Sheff G’s jewel-encrusted grill, quipping ironically,
“I got to get my teeth like that” — all while pushing a tough-on-crime message.
promised to
It's never been unintentional.
Trump keeps unintentionally revealing his low opinion of Black people
leaning into an outlaw persona by affiliating with people accused or convicted of crimes
Trump spoke alongside rappers Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow, who are
facing counts of conspiracy to commit murder and weapons possession.
praised Sheff G’s jewel-encrusted grill, quipping ironically,
“I got to get my teeth like that” — all while pushing a tough-on-crime message.
promised to
Get your facts straight it was Joe Biden who showed up for a dinner with a single black father and his son and brought a burger for himself and fried chicken for the father and son . Shocked he didn't call the father "Boy" like he did with LL J Cool and a watermelon .
Bannon helps peel back the curtain on Trump’s Justice Dept. plans
Wait, didn’t Trump and his team already do this during their time in office? The answer is, sort of.
Trump publicly called on federal prosecutors to go after Joe Biden
“‘Where are all of the arrests?’: Trump demands Barr lock up his foes.”
Trump called on the Justice Department to “indict” his perceived Democratic foes — including Biden.
John Kelly, said the former president “regularly” wanted to use the Justice Department to retaliate against critics.
they now believe they’ve learned from their failures and know precisely what to do
Trump ‘tests the boundaries’ of campaign laws
a businessman offered a $1 million contribution and asked to have lunch
with Trump. “You’ve got to make it $25 million,” Trump claimed to have responded.
In the same remarks, another contributor, who generally gives $2 million to $3 million to Republicans,
was told that Trump would be unhappy unless he donated $25 million or $50 million.
By frequently tying the fundraising requests within seconds of promises of tax cuts,
oil project infrastructure approvals and other favorable policies and asking for sums
more than his campaign and the GOP can legally accept from an individual,
Trump is also testing the boundaries of federal campaign finance laws
Trump, desperate for donations, is telling his wealthy supporters that
if they put money in his campaign coffers, he’ll put money in their pockets
If he was already rich, the argument went, then the Trump wouldn’t have to
spend his time sucking up to elite donors, special interests, and corporate lobbyists.
Dude, don't you get bored spamming heavily biased drivel from the same media outlet day after day?
It's boring as **** to read. That's for sure.
Dude, don't you get bored spamming heavily biased drivel from the same media outlet day after day?
It's boring as **** to read. That's for sure.
Blowie, don't you get bored spamming Trump's lies and the heavily biased drivel from the Fox News day after day?
It's boring as **** to read. That's for sure.
Jury judging over Trump hush money case has been deliberating for more than 4 hours and is dismissed for the day.
They were "dismissed" because the judge sensed the jury would be hung after they requested clarification on laws that may indicate at least a hung jury and a mistrial. The judge will be sending them back into deliberation until they come back with a guilty verdict. The judge didn't send them home to "give them all some rest" by any means.
...or because it was 4:12 EST and there was still court business to complete after they are dismissed.
one of those...
They were "dismissed" because the judge sensed the jury would be hung after they requested clarification on laws that may indicate at least a hung jury and a mistrial. The judge will be sending them back into deliberation until they come back with a guilty verdict. The judge didn't send them home to "give them all some rest" by any means.
The judge has no control over whether or not the jury comes back with a Guilty verdict.
I have been on two juries in NY State.
In one case the jury was unclear about whether a guy had committed a premeditated crime or not but we were 100% sure that he had physically abused the woman in question. So we agreed on guilt for two of the charges and let him off on the worst charge.
In another case a guy was incredibly obviously guilty of helping a drug organization sell drugs illegally. The jury was fairly split until a woman said that she would not see a black man found guilty for this type of crime and go to jail as a result. The jury had a number of blacks, hispanics and whites. It became obvious that regardless of the guilt or innocence that the man was a drug addict himself and did what he did to survive. He basically carried cash from one person to another and then brought drugs back to the first person who would give it to the customer. In the end none of us really cared if he went to jail or not and we found him not guilty. Why I am telling you this is because the Judge came in to thank us for our verdict and then told us that if we had found him guilty for his small time crime he would have gone to jail for 25 years because it was his third federal offense. So the Judge thanked each of us for finding him not guilty. At no time in the trial did the Judge do or say anything that led us to believe we should find him Not Guilty. In fact just the opposite. Everything the Judge said to us should have convinced us that he had broken the law because he basically had.
This Judge in the Donald Trump case has basically made sure that the lawyers and witnesses followed the law. The final outcome is not up to him and he knows that.
Here is an article on literally what Jud...
This is what he said "He told the jury that prosecutors do not need to prove these secondary crimes, nor do jurors need to be in agreement on which specific one Mr Trump committed. They must reach a unanimous verdict on each of the 34 counts, however."
I get that you don't want Trump to lose. But to pretend that the judge is telling the jurors that they don't have to agree unanimously on each of the 34 counts Trump is charged with is beyond ridiculous. It is not how it works in court in NY.
The appeals are ongoing, the things he described are very plausibly open wounds for him, it's not settled matters
Great. That doesn't make it any less bizarre.
Get your facts straight it was Joe Biden who showed up for a dinner with a single black father and his son and brought a burger for himself and fried chicken for the father and son . Shocked he didn't call the father "Boy" like he did with LL J Cool and a watermelon .
They were "dismissed" because the judge sensed the jury would be hung after they requested clarification on laws that may indicate at least a hung jury and a mistrial. The judge will be sending them back into deliberation until they come back with a guilty verdict. The judge didn't send them home to "give them all some rest" by any means.
LOL.
Is there a conspiracy theory that backs your point of view that you *won't* believe?
Spoiler
Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question, I know the answer already. 😀
I don't think they'll convict. The whole thing is bizarre. Maybe on a count or two. No sentence if so. It's kind of an expensive joke.
I don't think they'll convict. The whole thing is bizarre. Maybe on a count or two. No sentence if so. It's kind of an expensive joke.
I don't think it can be one count or 2.
All 34 counts are about the same thing.
They have to find he falsified them (that he ordered to falsify them) and that he did so to hide another crime. It's either they find for all 34 or for none.
Here is an article on literally what Jud...
This is what he said "He told the jury that prosecutors do not need to prove these secondary crimes, nor do jurors need to be in agreement on which specific one Mr Trump committed. They must reach a unanimous verdict on each of the 34 counts, however."
I get that you don't want Trump to lose. But to pretend that the judge is telling the jurors that they don't have to agree unanimously
Rick the claim is a different one.
Given that the falsification per se isn't enough to convict, they need to be convinced it happened to hide other crimes (which weren't tried in the trial to be clear).
Judge said they don't need to agree on which crimes.
So if half the jury believe he falsified to interfere with elections, and half that he did so to commit tax evasion, they can convict.
Now that might be legal under NYS law, but it's still very bizarre anyway, and the fact he doesn't have to be convicted of the alleged crime(s) he allegedly tried to hide is even more bizarre.
There is a reason if this statute is rarely if ever used unless there is a conviction for the predicated crime on the table already
lol I knew with 100% certainty I'd see BJ in here parroting the lies about the jury not having to be unanimous.
Yes, the statute itself makes no requirement for agreement, and the jury doesn't ever need to agree on all details, only that the crime (first degree falsification of business records) was commited. There is absolutely nothing improper about the jury instructions.
Trump's new lie is a desperate attempt to exploit confusion during verdict watch
Trump and his allies were quick to start lying about his jury's instructions
minutes after the jury in Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial exited the courtroom Wednesday
to begin deliberating, the former president quickly began posting up a storm on Truth Social
long as all 12 jurors agree that the April 2017 invoice was altered and that it
was done to conceal the conspiracy to boost Trump’s election chances, he is guilty
without a more active pushback from the judge and legal experts, the simple fiction
that Trump is selling might be more easily digestible than the complicated truth
