1. The Trial: Trials are supposed to be fair according to the US Constitution, and the defendant is supposed judged by a jury of his peers. A. NY State Attorney General ran and won office on the basis of “getting DT”. The Judge in the trial expresses anti-DT bias and was a long time dem contributor. He openly mocked DT on news casts. B. The prosecutors in the case were all avowed democrat supporters of various amounts of money. They were widely criticized because prior to the trial they changed the wording of the charges to “fit” prosecuting DT. C. The dating of the charges was also manipulated because the statute of limitations had expired on the charges, thus preventing prosecution. D. Prosecutors allowed name calling and bullying in the court room. E. Large amounts of defense material was disallowed for grossly inadequate reasons. F. One of the prosecutors quit his job as #3 in the Justice Department for the purpose of prosecuting DT, fair? Not according to the Constitution. G. ALL JURY MEMBERS WERE DEMOCRATS. The trial was exactly like the trials used in the 19th century to get rid of troublesome black people. So no I don’t accept the findings of such a sham. Convicted by a jury that would convict him of eating a ham sandwich.
2. Same for the rape trial.
Democrats and KKK members used to say the same things about black people after their trials as the now do about DT.
Bottom Line you dems have no ethics, and I don’t see how anyone could vote for people whose entire beings are unethical. It appears that you are so crooked you cannot see your own faults .
Not one has been though appeals court yet chowderhead. The election may keep him safe from the federal charges, but not civil case. Still on the hook for over $80 million.
Civil case will be overturned later and at most the greedy woman will get some paltry damages and most likely settle. That case proved nothing other than that a NYC jury and judge wanted to punish Trump and be “heroes”. It was a farce. No finding he assaulted her in any way. The damages were awarded for “damaging her reputation “ (what reputation) and nothing else. Get over whining about losing Doc face truth and reality and get on with your life. You voted for Harris who said she was all about the future and looking forward. It’s time for you to get with the program or at the very least complain about post election stuff if you must. @DocSavage
@jackjjackson There is nothing, repeat nothing that says the case will be overturned. Trump won the election, but that doesn’t change the fact he’s guilty. A argument which you use against Biden often. While you may think he walks on water, the truth is he swims in sewage.
He’s not a good person. He is a good president with good policies and determination. In the end we will both see what happens with the “civil (no comment re merits or outlandish damages) case”. @DocSavage
Word is? You know Smith was unlawfully appointed will be gone maybe even while Biden is still in office and Congress has subpoenaed all his records before he destroys them. He is a nothing and will soon be forgotten. @DocSavage
@jackjjackson @jackjjackson So far, everything Jack Smith has stood the test of time. You’re still clinging to the notion that Trump isn’t guilty. He is, even if he never goes to jail.
As I’ve reminded you repeatedly all that will be decided when the last appeal ends. Smiths first case was tossed out and the second would likely have been too we will never know. Smith was improperly appointed has basically stolen all he was paid after that and will be fired prior to Biden leaving office. Don’t tell me what I think and know. You’re certainly not Karnak the Magnificent. @DocSavage
@jackjjackson That brings me back to the original question. Does it change the fact that Trump is guilty ? Assuming that his appointment improper, or legitimate. The brief Smith put in before the election, was pretty convincing. The technical difference doesn’t invalidate the facts.
@jackjjackson Still deflecting the question. Jack Smith can’t take it to trial. But he still presented the case. Trump got presidential immunity from the Supreme Court. But it doesn’t cover everything, it not for the election, Trump could be convicted. The courts up held Smith’s position. In fact, now that Trump escaped trial. Smith can release all of his evidence to the public.
