GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems and “progressives” (regressives?) should be ashamed of what they are doing to Trump. You have all lost your minds and have become blind to the fact that you are the bad guys. You are doing legitimate damage, not to Trump, but to our country. I can’t imagine ever voting for a Democrat, or even at all, anymore. It’s shameful.

How does upholding the rule of law damage the United States?

It strengthens us and everything our nation stands for.

You are not “upholding the law”, dimwit. You are cheering on the destruction of a political enemy. You are terribly wrong if you think people are going to move on from this stuff. You are doing lasting damage to the confidence of a substantial portion of the population in the government and other institutions, all because you’re too brain dead to realize that the people on MSNBC telling you to be excited about this are themselves idiots.

If you break the law you face the consequences. He broke the law. And the feelings of a "substantial portion of the population" do not change that.

If he's not guilty, you have nothing to worry about. He'll be acquitted. Hell he might be acquitted even if he is guilty. This is Georgia.

No, moron. The prosecution alleges he broke the law. They have not proven that. If you had an IQ above room temperature, or any shred of intellectual honesty, you might get that.

Yes our lying eye did not see J6. This is the end. Bet he flees the country.

I live near the Capitol and saw lots. You know who I didn’t see there? Donald Trump.

He literally grabbed the steering wheel of the Beast to try to get there and the Secret Service refused to allow him. It wasn't for lack of trying.

OMG, seriously?

Yes, seriously

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-steering-wheel-january-6-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-mark-meadows/

Hand me CBS

It was sworn congressional testimony.

[Anonymous]

Nobody can take Dershowitz seriously. He states opinions as facts and is about as partisan and delusional as you can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's state court. No corrupt SCOTUS to bail his orange a$$ out.

What? A president cannot pardon state charges. People appeal state charges all the way to the Supreme Court pretty frequently. That’s one of the reasons they exist. However I hope The Rapist dies in prison.

I am assuming he will die before he could be convicted of anything and this will all be for nothing.

At least the rapist will be kept busy having to grift donations to pay his legal fees and will have to live the rest of his rapist life under multiple criminal indictments if he dies before he is convicted. I can live with that.

question is - will he have a state funeral?

I mean - he already "lied in state (of GA)". but you get what I mean.

Congress would have to approve of him lying in state at the Capitol...which would only be possible if the Senate got rid of the filibuster (who knew, the filibuster is actually good for something).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Trump’s Georgia indictments:

“First of all, nobody should take seriously that there was grand jury indictment. The fact that it was agrand jury indictment, it means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted. Now, the whole strategy of all these four casesis to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors, if you bring a Rico case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states. And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump.

And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election, which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's runningagainst your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible. And these are among the four, at least three of them, three weakest cases I’ve ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise, it becomes a banana republic. Anybody can prosecute anybody.And we're opening the door to prosecutionof Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats. It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist isthe most dangerous threat to democracy, and we're seeingit unfold in front of our eyes.Very, very tragically.

I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution.I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being fritter away for partisan political purposes.”

I always see this guy quoted, but is he taken seriously by anyone?

No.

And if we don’t hold politicians responsible for crimes, then all our politicians will start/keep committing crimes.

[Anonymous]

Dershowitz is a tool. Quoting him like what he says is fact makes you look like a tool.

Read what he said in 2020 about the election challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Trump’s Georgia indictments:

“First of all, nobody should take seriously that there was grand jury indictment. The fact that it was agrand jury indictment, it means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted. Now, the whole strategy of all these four casesis to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors, if you bring a Rico case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states. And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump.

And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election, which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's runningagainst your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible. And these are among the four, at least three of them, three weakest cases I’ve ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise, it becomes a banana republic. Anybody can prosecute anybody.And we're opening the door to prosecutionof Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats. It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist isthe most dangerous threat to democracy, and we're seeingit unfold in front of our eyes.Very, very tragically.

I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution.I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being fritter away for partisan political purposes.”

Whatever your views of Alan Dershowitz, can we not have some compassion for the man?

Alan Dershowitz hasn’t been seen at his favorite nude beach in months

https://pagesix.com/2020/07/06/alan-dershowitz-hasnt-visited-his-favorite-nude-beach-in-months/

[Anonymous]

Lock him up! Lock him up!

[Anonymous]

I really wish I could go forward in time 25 or 50 years to see what history has to say out our time here. By that point all these clowns will be dead and all the evidence will be revealed.

we are truly living in remarkable times.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's state court. No corrupt SCOTUS to bail his orange a$$ out.

What? A president cannot pardon state charges. People appeal state charges all the way to the Supreme Court pretty frequently. That’s one of the reasons they exist. However I hope The Rapist dies in prison.

There won't be a reason this should be appealed to the SCOTUS. They wouldn't take a case like this. It is a state matter, not a federal matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's state court. No corrupt SCOTUS to bail his orange a$$ out.

What? A president cannot pardon state charges. People appeal state charges all the way to the Supreme Court pretty frequently. That’s one of the reasons they exist. However I hope The Rapist dies in prison.

I am assuming he will die before he could be convicted of anything and this will all be for nothing.

There are plenty of conspirators who won't be dying any time soon and this won't be for nothing. Roger Stone and Richard Nixon not being held accountable for Watergate led to this.

[Anonymous]

too bad Trump can't read and see what deep doo doo he is in.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/7/7/21316205/mary-trump-book-donald-too-much-never-enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Trump’s Georgia indictments:

“First of all, nobody should take seriously that there was grand jury indictment. The fact that it was agrand jury indictment, it means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted. Now, the whole strategy of all these four casesis to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors, if you bring a Rico case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states. And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump.

And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election, which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's runningagainst your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible. And these are among the four, at least three of them, three weakest cases I’ve ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise, it becomes a banana republic. Anybody can prosecute anybody.And we're opening the door to prosecutionof Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats. It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist isthe most dangerous threat to democracy, and we're seeingit unfold in front of our eyes.Very, very tragically.

I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution.I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being fritter away for partisan political purposes.”

1) a grand jury hands down an indictment based on evidence presented by the state.
2) There are scores of REPUBLICAN witnesses, emails, texts and documents that underpin the charges. It isn't about "mental state"
3) All of these cases are basically slam dunks based on the evidence that has been gathered.
4) the most dangerous threat to democracy is not holding seditious traitors accountable for their actions
5) The good professor has a serious Epstein problem, it doesn't matter whether he considers himself a democrat or republican, he isn't acting like an American.

[Anonymous]

Hey - where is Kellyanne in all of this? I'm surprised she isn't making the rounds on network tv. or is she?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Trump’s Georgia indictments:

“First of all, nobody should take seriously that there was grand jury indictment. The fact that it was agrand jury indictment, it means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted. Now, the whole strategy of all these four casesis to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors, if you bring a Rico case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states. And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump.

And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election, which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's runningagainst your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible. And these are among the four, at least three of them, three weakest cases I’ve ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise, it becomes a banana republic. Anybody can prosecute anybody.And we're opening the door to prosecutionof Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats. It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist isthe most dangerous threat to democracy, and we're seeingit unfold in front of our eyes.Very, very tragically.

I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution.I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being fritter away for partisan political purposes.”

I always see this guy quoted, but is he taken seriously by anyone?

Desperate Republicans