Trump 2024 — The second term

[Ingomike]

Thank you for stating this. I don’t need a court to tell me this was unconstitutional all the way.

So you believe OJ was innocent since the jury found that?

 

[Route 45]

 

[LeftyGunner]

Thank you for stating this. I don’t need a court to tell me this was unconstitutional all the way.

So you believe OJ was innocent since the jury found that?

Actually, Mike…we do need a court to tell us what is constitutional and what is not...it’s in the constitution.

OJ? I think he stabbed two people to death, but I have to accept that he beat the system legitimately…he bought better lawyers than the LA prosecutor’s office did.

Court is about who tells the more believable story…not the more truthful one. It is a fundamental flaw of the adversarial legal system…one from which Trump suffered, but OJ benefited.

 

[Route 45]

"tRuMp hAd hiS dAy iN cOUrT!"

 

[INPatriot]

Coming up on 20 hours ex post verdict.

No city blocks have burned and there haven't been any riots...

 

[Route 45]

 

[jwamplerusa]

we do need a court to tell us what is constitutional and what is not...it’s in the constitution.

Actually, no we don't. The reason is in the first three words "We the people". The Constitution is the People's (citizens of the United States) document.

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There have been far to many reversed and egregious judicial findings to pretend the judicial system is infallible. The final determinant of what is Constitutional ALWAYS resides with the people.

See my post above, if that is what it takes.

 

[Route 45]

 

[LeftyGunner]

Actually, no we don't. The reason is in the first three words "We the people". The Constitution is the People's (citizens of the United States) document.

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There have been far to many reversed and egregious judicial findings to pretend the judicial system is infallible. The final determinant of what is Constitutional ALWAYS resides with the people.

See my post above, if that is what it takes.

You are talking about extra-constitutional action, but I get the point you are making and, I absolutely agree.

 

[Brad69]

Trump is the last chance to turn the country around. Joe Biden if reelected the country will continue in a steep decline.

1. we cannot absorb millions of illegals they will not assimilate.

2. climate change is not a threat to western nations we already have regulations in place. Asia and Africa are gross polluters.

3. China has a 100 year plan what do we have ?

4. we spend unlimited money on wasteful foreign projects that is never returned.

I could go one forever you might not like Tump but you have issues if you don’t support him. It’s about the Country not you.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Hilarious how they’ve spent 8-ish years calling him Hitler but now they think “felon” is the label that will keep people from supporting him….idiots.

I’m old enough to remember Trump’s first presidency. He wasn’t Hitler. He wasn’t a dictator. He has a loud, brash mouth but he’s fairly vanilla on matters of actual policy.

And then what’s next? What are they gonna call the next guy? Once you call someone Hitler, there’s really no going back.

“Trump was literally Hitler but this next guy is SO MUCH WORSE!!!!”

 

[Ingomike]

Thread from Former FEC Chairman Whose Testimony Merchan Refused to Allow in Trump Trial DAMNING Must-Read

twitchy.com

 

[jamil]

Actually, Mike…we do need a court to tell us what is constitutional and what is not...it’s in the constitution.

OJ? I think he stabbed two people to death, but I have to accept that he beat the system legitimately…he bought better lawyers than the LA prosecutor’s office did.

Court is about who tells the more believable story…not the more truthful one. It is a fundamental flaw of the adversarial legal system…one from which Trump suffered, but OJ benefited.

Interesting. Well, first, it's in case law, not the constitution. Marbury v Madison established judicial review and the power to declare a law unconstitutional. I don't disagree with it. I think though not explicit in the constitution, it's implied in Article III, and through separation of powers.

Okay, second, OJ won the case because of race. Not because he had the more believable story. I suspect the jury members really didn't think he was innocent, but could not bring themselves to saying he's guilty. Trump did not lose because he had a less believable story. He lost because that was the desired outcome by the people in charge of the trial, and the TDS jury.

Third, we don't need a court to understand that it was a sham trial. We need a court for any legal action to reverse it. So you don't get to tell people they can't believe it was a sham.

Fourth, you don't get to have it both ways. You complained about Trump using the courts in civil matters to further his own interests at the expense of others. But you don't want to accept that he beat the system legitimately. And you're quite willing to accept OJ doing it.

I don't have to accept the court's verdict on OJ. That ************ was guilty as a person could be. Trump was railroaded on this. For any of the trials that take place in NY or DC, Trump will lose. If for no other reason, that he can't win in those venues, because the fix is in.

 

[rbhargan]

Hilarious how they’ve spent 8-ish years calling him Hitler but now they think “felon” is the label that will keep people from supporting him….idiots.

I’m old enough to remember Trump’s first presidency. He wasn’t Hitler. He wasn’t a dictator. He has a loud, brash mouth but he’s fairly vanilla on matters of actual policy.

And then what’s next? What are they gonna call the next guy? Once you call someone Hitler, there’s really no going back.

“Trump was literally Hitler but this next guy is SO MUCH WORSE!!!!”

Well, they couldn't call the next guy Stalin. Or Mao. Oh, wait...

 

[LeftyGunner]

Interesting. Well, first, it's in case law, not the constitution. Marbury v Madison established judicial review and the power to declare a law unconstitutional. I don't disagree with it. I think though not explicit in the constitution, it's implied in Article III, and through separation of powers.

So…to refute my point that a court has to decide what the constitution says, you make the point that a court had to decide what the constitution said?

Okay.

Okay, second, OJ won the case because of race.
Not because he had the more believable story. I suspect the jury members really didn't think he was innocent, but could not bring themselves to saying he's guilty.

OJ won because the jury didn’t trust the prosecution...they saw Clark and Furhman as extensions of the same LAPD that hassle them everyday in the streets, not as arbiters of justice.

At the end of the day, the jury didn’t believe the story the prosecution was selling, and the defense was capable enough to capitalize on that. They hung Clark up constantly, and hearing Furhman say the N-word a hundred and fifty times absolutely ruined the prosecution‘s credibility with that jury.

Trump did not lose because he had a less believable story. He lost because that was the desired outcome by the people in charge of the trial, and the TDS jury.

The prosecution showed up with a fully-fleshed narrative, complete with receipts. They provided documents and supported those documents with testimony from multiple corroborating witnesses.

Trump slept at the defense table while his ”star“ witness tried to intimidate the judge…all in front of the jury, mind you… and then refused to testify in his own defense.

Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.

Third, we don't need a court to understand that it was a sham trial. We need a court for any legal action to reverse it. So you don't get to tell people they can't believe it was a sham.

Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.

I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.

Fourth, you don't get to have it both ways. You complained about Trump using the courts in civil matters to further his own interests at the expense of others. But you don't want to accept that he beat the system legitimately. And you're quite willing to accept OJ doing it.

Apples and oranges…as you like to say.

I don't have to accept the court's verdict on OJ. That ************ was guilty as a person could be. Trump was railroaded on this. For any of the trials that take place in NY or DC, Trump will lose. If for no other reason, that he can't win in those venues, because the fix is in.

Nah, he’ll lose because he’s guilty as charged…just like in NY.

 

[jamil]

My son informed me that a progressive friend at work has flipped and is voting for Trump. Not because of the results of the trial. He still hates Trump and thinks he’s guilty on everything. He doesn’t give a ****. The economy is hitting him in the balls and that’s all that matters right now.

 

[Ziggidy]

Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.

Was Trump allowed to bring forth all his witnesses? Why not?

Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.

I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.

What crimes was he convicted of and what proof do they have?

 

[BeDome]

View attachment 356493

Most of those felons, if convicted by standing British law at the time, would have been sentenced to death and probably a public execution.

 

[jamil]

So…to refute my point that a court has to decide what the constitution says, you make the point that a court had to decide what the constitution said?

Okay.

The paragraph you quoted to say I refuted your point did not intend to refute your point about the constitution, other than to make your "it's in the constitution" more correct. You didn't even address the point that actually refuted your point. We can recap to make that clearer.

Mike said:
Thank you for stating this. I don’t need a court to tell me this was unconstitutional all the way.

To which you replied:
Actually, Mike…we do need a court to tell us what is constitutional and what is not...it’s in the constitution.

lol, first, I have to talk about the irony of you declaring all along that Trump is guilty of all the charges, in all the cases, without a court having deciding on them all. And then you tell Mike that no, he can't have an opinion that it's unconstitutional, that a court needs to decide it first. lol. Which is it?

So now to the point, Mike is correct that we don't need a court to tell us. Just like we don't need a court to tell us that the ATF's action on stabilizing braces is unconstitutional, bump stocks, etcetera. Did you need Heller to know that the onerous prohibitions on firearm ownership in ClownWorld™ jurisdictions was unconstitutional?

OJ won because the jury didn’t trust the prosecution...they saw Clark and Furhman as extensions of the same LAPD that hassle them everyday in the streets, not as arbiters of justice.

At the end of the day, the jury didn’t believe the story the prosecution was selling, and the defense was capable enough to capitalize on that. They hung Clark up constantly, and hearing Furhman say the N-word a hundred and fifty times absolutely ruined the prosecution‘s credibility with that jury.

At the end of the day, if OJ were white and all the other circumstances were present, OJ would have been convicted. Everyone watched the same trial. Everyone thought OJ was guilty as ****. But those jurors had to say it in deliberations in front of their peers.

The prosecution showed up with a fully-fleshed narrative, complete with receipts. They provided documents and supported those documents with testimony from multiple corroborating witnesses.

Trump slept at the defense table while his ”star“ witness tried to intimidate the judge…all in front of the jury, mind you… and then refused to testify in his own defense.

Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.



Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.

I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.

********. Trump lost because the jurors thought he was guilty before the trial even started. The prosecution did not bring the right receipts. Their star witness--no, not the ho--proved to be a lying sack of ****, who stole from Trump. They did not have receipts that proved the payments were for the purpose of paying for the ho's silence. And they certainly did not prove the elevating charge which would support the elevation to felony, that Trump committed fraud by paying the ho off to run for president. That was a reach from the beginning.

All the court proved was what we already knew. Trump's not a good human being. He ****ed a porn star while his wife was pregnant.

And Trump didn't take the stand because the activist court would nitpick every word to find a way they could charge him with perjury. Many lawyers watching the case said they would have advised him not to testify for that exact reason. His own lawyers advised him not to testify for that reason. Often courts instruct jurors that not taking the stand is not an indication of guilt. Did that happen here?

Apples and oranges…as you like to say.

Do I really say that? I may have said it once or twice, but it's not common. What I typically say for that case is less metaphorical. Something like, they're not the same thing, and then I explain why I think they're different.

Nah, he’ll lose because he’s guilty as charged…just like in NY.

See? Not only are you violating your "you need a court to decide it," you are supporting the suspicion you're in this more for the neeners than to understand Trumpers.

But, about your belief that Trump is guilty as charged in all the cases, without a trial you believe he's already guilty without having heard the evidence. All you have is what you already believe with an activist news media helping to confirm your bias.

And I suspect that even if found innocent, you'll still believe he's guilty. It's not the facts of the case that convinced you he's guilty in NY. It's the TDS coupled with your perspective that Trump deserves it even if he isn't guilty, because of his sins of the past and Karma.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Ingomike]

So…to refute my point that a court has to decide what the constitution says, you make the point that a court had to decide what the constitution said?

Okay.



OJ won because the jury didn’t trust the prosecution...they saw Clark and Furhman as extensions of the same LAPD that hassle them everyday in the streets, not as arbiters of justice.

At the end of the day, the jury didn’t believe the story the prosecution was selling, and the defense was capable enough to capitalize on that. They hung Clark up constantly, and hearing Furhman say the N-word a hundred and fifty times absolutely ruined the prosecution‘s credibility with that jury.



The prosecution showed up with a fully-fleshed narrative, complete with receipts. They provided documents and supported those documents with testimony from multiple corroborating witnesses.

Trump slept at the defense table while his ”star“ witness tried to intimidate the judge…all in front of the jury, mind you… and then refused to testify in his own defense.

Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.



Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.

I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.



Apples and oranges…as you like to say.



Nah, he’ll lose because he’s guilty as charged…just like in NY.

So why was the former FEC chairman not allowed to testify?

Was it just random that a judge that is not even on the roster of judges gets the Bannon trial, the Trump organization trial, and the Trump trial? BTW, the odds of this are similar to a three number lottery, and I got news for you, the house always wins.

You have no concerns that the Judge contributed to Biden and a stop Trump organization and did not recuse himself?

You have no concerns that the judges daughter works for an organization raising nearly $100 million this year as the trial progressed for Trumps political opponents and enemies?