Kemp Posted July 21, 2023 Author Posted July 21, 2023 16 minutes ago, Chris farley said: if current history repeats itself again. it will just be another dud/acquittal. like all the other times. same thing. Anything can happen. 5 minutes ago, aristocrat said: I gave you a shot. You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla. I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted. You lived up to expectations.
aristocrat Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, Kemp said: Anything can happen. I gave you a shot. You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla. I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted. You lived up to expectations. whats the problem? you spent four years claiming russia rigged the 16 election in trumps favor, set up fake investigations that tore the country apart, then rioted which killed dozens and caused billions in damage and you wonder why 1-6 happens? 1-6 didn't just happen in a vacuum. Your party sewed the seed that the elections were not secure and you saw the result of that. 1 1
Tiberius Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: No, I’m right. I usually am. You can’t tiptoe around a guy who screams cult every time he loses control of his emotions, and becomes enraged when a question on guilt or innocence is answered rationally. He doesn’t like my answer, but that’s his problem, not mine. You seem like the one that can't handle the truth. You really think Trump didn't try to violently interfere with the transfer of power? 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You seem like the one that can't handle the truth. You really think Trump didn't try to violently interfere with the transfer of power? The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make. If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people. I’m happy to revisit it at that time. In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI. 1
SectionC3 Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Anything can happen. I gave you a shot. You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla. I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted. You lived up to expectations. That's the MAGA playbook. Memes and MTG rap videos also are part of the arsenal. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Anything can happen. I gave you a shot. You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla. I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted. You lived up to expectations. And the well known politico, Andrew Baroncelli. Now I'm craving a lemoncello and it's way too early.
SectionC3 Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 20 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make. If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people. I’m happy to revisit it at that time. In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI. Hoax.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI. nope. not the D's. R''s have been doing those things since before the 2020 election. D's actually win in the framework as designed. R's, esp trump R's, lose. 55 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You seem like the one that can't handle the truth. You really think Trump didn't try to violently interfere with the transfer of power? older barbie and the stooge on the right are fighting back tears. 1
ChiGoose Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 This actually seems fairly aggressive given the case. I’m curious to see if it doesn’t get pushed back as we get closer.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 2 hours ago, redtail hawk said: nope. not the D's. R''s have been doing those things since before the 2020 election. D's actually win in the framework as designed. R's, esp trump R's, lose. older barbie and the stooge on the right are fighting back tears. History shows otherwise, but I commend your dedication to the party line. 1
SectionC3 Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 52 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This actually seems fairly aggressive given the case. I’m curious to see if it doesn’t get pushed back as we get closer. With anybody else it would plead, but Trump is such a d-bag he’ll run it through trial and risk public discussion of what by all accounts are sensitive matters. I disagree on the aggressiveness; the case basically is documents, establishing that the documents are classified/secret/etc., establishing a chain of custody/control with respect to those documents, and establishing intent to withhold said documents from federal agents. It’s probably a relatively small universe of witnesses — in a normal context, I wonder if much of the “chain” testimony could be stipulated to — so no reason to let this thing fester. Get it done.
ChiGoose Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: With anybody else it would plead, but Trump is such a d-bag he’ll run it through trial and risk public discussion of what by all accounts are sensitive matters. I disagree on the aggressiveness; the case basically is documents, establishing that the documents are classified/secret/etc., establishing a chain of custody/control with respect to those documents, and establishing intent to withhold said documents from federal agents. It’s probably a relatively small universe of witnesses — in a normal context, I wonder if much of the “chain” testimony could be stipulated to — so no reason to let this thing fester. Get it done. I think that's correct from the government's perspective. They seem pretty well organized and shouldn't have a problem presenting their case by May (especially since it is such a slam dunk that any other defendant would have already plead out). However, the discovery process is going to be fairly onerous for Trump's team. Sure, they can get a bunch of junior lawyers on doc review, but to my knowledge, cases involving classified documents rarely go to trial within a year of the indictment. Additionally, there's going to be a lot of motion practice on how to handled the classified materials. As a defendant, Trump would normally be able to view the materials to be used against him but the government would be worried that he would be careless with them and would prefer only Trump's lawyers view it. Additionally, how are they going to handle classified info in open court? Are they going to use the silent witness rule or some other method? It's definitely possible the May date holds, I just wouldn't be surprised if it ends up getting pushed back some. 1
Kemp Posted July 21, 2023 Author Posted July 21, 2023 3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make. If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people. I’m happy to revisit it at that time. In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI. Well, my friend, you seem to be channeling opposite world. Could have sworn it was Trump who tried to destroy faith and confidence in our system when he believed Putin over our agencies. Maybe it was Hunter Biden impersonating Trump? Trump's stated and whole agenda is to destroy faith in American government. Hell, he even recently stated exactly that. 3
SectionC3 Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I think that's correct from the government's perspective. They seem pretty well organized and shouldn't have a problem presenting their case by May (especially since it is such a slam dunk that any other defendant would have already plead out). However, the discovery process is going to be fairly onerous for Trump's team. Sure, they can get a bunch of junior lawyers on doc review, but to my knowledge, cases involving classified documents rarely go to trial within a year of the indictment. Additionally, there's going to be a lot of motion practice on how to handled the classified materials. As a defendant, Trump would normally be able to view the materials to be used against him but the government would be worried that he would be careless with them and would prefer only Trump's lawyers view it. Additionally, how are they going to handle classified info in open court? Are they going to use the silent witness rule or some other method? It's definitely possible the May date holds, I just wouldn't be surprised if it ends up getting pushed back some. The easiest way to do it would be to get Trump to stip to the nature of the documents. The import rests in what the docs are, not necessarily in what they say. So maybe silent witness rule. Before that happens the Trump lawyers probably have to get eyes on the docs in a secure setting (maybe Trump does, too, to be fair). If it goes that route, then I don’t see why they can’t run this thing by May.
ChiGoose Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: The easiest way to do it would be to get Trump to stip to the nature of the documents. The import rests in what the docs are, not necessarily in what they say. So maybe silent witness rule. Before that happens the Trump lawyers probably have to get eyes on the docs in a secure setting (maybe Trump does, too, to be fair). If it goes that route, then I don’t see why they can’t run this thing by May. Sure, but it won't go that way. While one might think he'd want the trial over sooner if he believed he was innocent (an acquittal before the election probably strengthens him), Trump is going to delay as much as possible to get the date moved after the election. Not sure if he'll be successful though.
Tiberius Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make. If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people. I’m happy to revisit it at that time. In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI. You have seen the evidence, did he stir up a riot in your opinion or not?
Tommy Callahan Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You have seen the evidence, did he stir up a riot in your opinion or not? So now its "did he stir up a riot" bar keeps going down. 2 1
ChiGoose Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 We'll see when the target letter is made public or Trump is actually indicted, but I remain skeptical that he'll be charged for incitement of violence. Fake electors, wire fraud, defrauding the US, etc seem much more likely.
SectionC3 Posted July 21, 2023 Posted July 21, 2023 29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Sure, but it won't go that way. While one might think he'd want the trial over sooner if he believed he was innocent (an acquittal before the election probably strengthens him), Trump is going to delay as much as possible to get the date moved after the election. Not sure if he'll be successful though. Ultimately it’s not his choice. This thing is going if the judge wants it to go.
Recommended Posts