John from Riverside Posted October 7, 2023 Posted October 7, 2023 4 hours ago, Doc said: Then it's a non-story. Otherwise...he'd have been charged. There are multiple reasons why he might not have been charged A lot of this is about what you can prove vocal conversations with no recording or not easy to prove They could bring Pratt in during the trial, though 1 1
Doc Posted October 7, 2023 Posted October 7, 2023 6 hours ago, John from Riverside said: There are multiple reasons why he might not have been charged A lot of this is about what you can prove vocal conversations with no recording or not easy to prove They could bring Pratt in during the trial, though No need to bring him in. Just ask him what Trump told him and see if it's accurate. I'm sure they already did and it wasn't, hence no charges. 1 1
Warcodered Posted October 7, 2023 Posted October 7, 2023 7 hours ago, Doc said: No need to bring him in. Just ask him what Trump told him and see if it's accurate. I'm sure they already did and it wasn't, hence no charges. What in a trial about Trumps illegal handling of classified documents, what could they possibly want with a witness with a firsthand account of Trump blathering on about government secrets? 1
Doc Posted October 8, 2023 Posted October 8, 2023 13 hours ago, Warcodered said: What in a trial about Trumps illegal handling of classified documents, what could they possibly want with a witness with a firsthand account of Trump blathering on about government secrets? Like some of us said before, if Trump had told the billionaire top-secret information, he would have been charged with it. They’ve charged him with everything possible under the sun, why not this? Which is why I believe they asked him and the information was not accurate. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 8, 2023 Posted October 8, 2023 almost feel sorry for the mobster🤣 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/donald-trump-trial-new-york-fraud-ae68650https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/donald-trump-trial-new-york-fraud-ae68650 1
Tommy Callahan Posted October 9, 2023 Posted October 9, 2023 TDS is a hell of a drug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wacka Posted October 9, 2023 Posted October 9, 2023 44 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: TDS is a hell of a drug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have done the walking tour of the famous graves at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Buffalo. I dare anybody to go to Rick James grave and not say the actual quote. I couldn't resist. 1
Kemp Posted October 11, 2023 Author Posted October 11, 2023 Moron cult leader displays his lack of vocabulary again. And snakes.
Tommy Callahan Posted October 11, 2023 Posted October 11, 2023 interesting nuggets in that Wa-Po article The New Yorker had reported in July 2021 that Milley had feared Trump would start a war with Iran to stay in power A similar scene was later recounted in Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’s book — though the book merely cites Trump having recalled such a document rather than actually showing it off. Meadows’s book wrote unflatteringly about Milley’s “plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency. President Trump denied those requests every time.” Whether other evidence points in this direction, we don’t yet know. But Smith’s team has clearly shown an interest in whether Trump used the documents for his personal advantage. In April it subpoenaed information about the dealings of Trump’s businesses with foreign countries, for instance, apparently in search of a possible financial motive. But such a motive wasn’t referenced in Trump’s indictment, and as of November 2022 it hadn’t been established, The Washington Post reported. And pretty much summarizes that smith needs to prove motive and/or intent.
BillStime Posted October 11, 2023 Posted October 11, 2023 On 10/6/2023 at 12:21 PM, B-Man said: There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Trump discussing U.S. nuclear subs with an Australian who is inquiring about them buying US subs. Unless Classified info was given. How did we miss this gem? Look at these idiots twist themselves into pretzels defending the indefensible. Can you imagine the cult's reaction if Biden were discussing nuclear subs with ANYONE? You saw their reaction to a tan suit.
Kemp Posted October 11, 2023 Author Posted October 11, 2023 4 hours ago, BillStime said: How did we miss this gem? Look at these idiots twist themselves into pretzels defending the indefensible. Can you imagine the cult's reaction if Biden were discussing nuclear subs with ANYONE? You saw their reaction to a tan suit. A tan suit is far more serious. He wore it as proof of his subjugation to AL Qaeda. 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 11, 2023 Posted October 11, 2023 19 hours ago, BillStime said: Whoa. That's a pretty big update. Gonna lead to a lot of speculation. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted October 11, 2023 Posted October 11, 2023 But I thought the constitution was of utmost importance to cons. Trump and anyone who still supports him are traitors. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/
ChiGoose Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 4 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Whoa. That's a pretty big update. Gonna lead to a lot of speculation. An important thing to note is that the standard for intent here is the intent to possess the documents, not on what he intended to use them for. That being said, if you have evidence on what he intended to use them for, that’s obviously pretty strong evidence for intent to possess. 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: An important thing to note is that the standard for intent here is the intent to possess the documents, not on what he intended to use them for. That being said, if you have evidence on what he intended to use them for, that’s obviously pretty strong evidence for intent to possess. It'll be interesting to see the details and how they figured it out.
Warcodered Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: But I thought the constitution was of utmost importance to cons. Trump and anyone who still supports him are traitors. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/ Quote But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices. "The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," Did the Judge then throw their gavel at the lawyers head? That's got to be one of the stupidest ideas for an argument I've ever heard. 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 Jesus. They are openly bragging about Dirty PACS trying to remove the orange dude from the ticket. "The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment" Other lawsuits are trying to disqualify Trump on the same grounds in other states, including Minnesota. However, these cases face obstacles, chiefly that the 14th Amendment doesn't lay out a clear enforcement mechanism, according to experts https://www.rawstory.com/14th-amendment-2664991980/ LOL, Raw story. by hook or crook.
Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 3 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said: I think trump's children should step in. Clearly their father is failing and he is doing so very publicly and he's breaking laws left and right. I know if my dad was senile and psychotic like that I would step up and save him from the embarassment you misspelled Biden. If hunter wasn't such a slug, maybe 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 13 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: But I thought the constitution was of utmost importance to cons. Trump and anyone who still supports him are traitors. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/ Putting on my objective lawyer hat ... it's actually not a bad argument! His lawyers are arguing that the insurrection clause wasn't meant to apply to the President. In support of that argument, they're saying the insurrection clause, by its own terms, applies only to those who took an oath to "support" the constitution. But the "support" language isn't there in the Presidential oath of office. Hence (the argument goes) this supports the theory that it was never intended to apply to the President. I'll grant you this: it's an awkward, even embarrassing argument to have to make (you're basically saying, "so what if Trump's actions didn't support the constitution"), but on a purely legal basis, kind of clever ... 1
Recommended Posts