New Senate Majority Leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 81
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
DOJ charging Gaetz WOULD NOT BE LAWFARE. I don't call everything lawfare just because a Republican is charged with a crime. If the DOJ felt they had enough evidence to convict him then convict him. I own no stock in Matt.

The NY charges against Trump are text book lawfare and you know it. A lot of you are attorneys and know the civil and criminal cases are BS and were targeted against ONE particular defendant who just happened to be running for President, and will be overturned on appeal by a liberal NY appellate court. Did you watch the oral argument of the civil fraud case? Georgia case will soon be going away as well once the appellate court removes Fani from the case.
Click to expand...
I work in the commercial real estate industry and I worked for one of the largest lenders doing high level finance transactions for 20 years. There is a reason Trump was using the private banking arm of a sketchy bank with Russian ties. His fraudulent statements wouldn't be touched by any reputable lender.
 
Ramrouser said:
The NY charges against Trump are text book lawfare and you know it. A lot of you are attorneys and know the civil and criminal cases are BS and were targeted against ONE particular defendant who just happened to be running for President, and will be overturned on appeal by a liberal NY appellate court. Did you watch the oral argument of the civil fraud case? Georgia case will soon be going away as well once the appellate court removes Fani from the case.
Click to expand...
LOL. The criminal case is not going to be overturned on appeal. They are going to drop it because Trump has been elected president and thus there is no criminal remedy that can be exercised against him.

Exactly how was that lawfare, though? The jury verdict was both unanimous and quick. Trump does not lack for money. He could have hired the best legal team in the country (except that nobody wants to represent him because they won't get paid); he chose something less than the best team but he still had multiple lawyers on his defense team. They were allowed to present a full defense. They made many objections to admission of evidence and they even won some of those objections.

And the jury convicted him. Textbook NOT LAWFARE.

And GA case going away because they remove Fani is literally getting off on a technicality. The fact of the matter is that he's on tape asking Raffensberger to cheat for him. That's a crime, end of story. Just because the GOP has mucked up the prosecutorial gears, along with an unforced error from the DA, doesn't mean Trump is innocent in any way. You still voted for a repeat and unremorseful felon.
 
superrific said:
LOL. The criminal case is not going to be overturned on appeal. They are going to drop it because Trump has been elected president and thus there is no criminal remedy that can be exercised against him.

Exactly how was that lawfare, though? The jury verdict was both unanimous and quick. Trump does not lack for money. He could have hired the best legal team in the country (except that nobody wants to represent him because they won't get paid); he chose something less than the best team but he still had multiple lawyers on his defense team. They were allowed to present a full defense. They made many objections to admission of evidence and they even won some of those objections.

And the jury convicted him. Textbook NOT LAWFARE.

And GA case going away because they remove Fani is literally getting off on a technicality. The fact of the matter is that he's on tape asking Raffensberger to cheat for him. That's a crime, end of story. Just because the GOP has mucked up the prosecutorial gears, along with an unforced error from the DA, doesn't mean Trump is innocent in any way. You still voted for a repeat and unremorseful felon.
Click to expand...
Ramrouser doesn't think a jury of Manhattanites are Trump's "peers," apparently. Who would you consider to be Trump's peers, ramrouser? Or do you just not believe in the jury system.
 
lawtig02 said:
Ramrouser doesn't think a jury of Manhattanites are Trump's "peers," apparently. Who would you consider to be Trump's peers, ramrouser? Or do you just not believe in the jury system.
Click to expand...
They have very clearly demonstrated that the only thing they care about is winning, and that the only thing they believe in is their weird distorted views of the Bible.

That's why they put the constitution in the bible in OK. Because they see the constitution as a secondary document, a footnote to the real truth and one that can be discarded as needed (but fiercely defended when it's convenient, like 2nd Am or affirmative action).
 
lawtig02 said:
Ramrouser doesn't think a jury of Manhattanites are Trump's "peers," apparently. Who would you consider to be Trump's peers, ramrouser? Or do you just not believe in the jury system.
Click to expand...
Trump’s peers = Incontinent rapists with double-digit IQs.
 
UNCatTech said:
Exactly.

If that were where the bill stopped, it would be almost entirely redundant to current law. Let me repeat: because all of the conduct described here already constitutes a deportable offense, this bill would ensure that no additional dangerous individuals would face immigration consequences. Zero.


Really no point if it doesn't actually change or make the current law better.

Sort of like all the bullshit bathroom bills, that only allowed targeting of trans people and added no actual new illegal activities.
Click to expand...
and sort of like the redundant NC Constitutional Amendment we passed last week making it illegal for non-citizens to vote
 
lawtig02 said:
Ramrouser doesn't think a jury of Manhattanites are Trump's "peers," apparently. Who would you consider to be Trump's peers, ramrouser? Or do you just not believe in the jury system.
Click to expand...
not necessary blaming the jurors I'm blaming the prosecutor and the judges.
 
Enigma94 said:
I work in the commercial real estate industry and I worked for one of the largest lenders doing high level finance transactions for 20 years. There is a reason Trump was using the private banking arm of a sketchy bank with Russian ties. His fraudulent statements wouldn't be touched by any reputable lender.
Click to expand...
No, that isn’t how it works in the REAL WORLD! Everyone commits fraud! Audits are fake!
 
Ramrouser said:
not necessary blaming the jurors I'm blaming the prosecutor and the judges.
Click to expand...
Soft on crime? If a jury found him guilty, what is your problem with any of it? He wasn't even a declared candidate at the time although I have no idea why that should be a get out of jail free card. How can you eliminate political corruption if running for office frees you from prosecution?
 
lawtig02 said:
Seems their decisions were vindicated by the jury, no?
Click to expand...
I mean, you know that's easy to go too far with this logic. The bigger point, I think, is that there were few instances of even arguable error, and of course the MAGAs don't know that. Trump's case is basically nothing but a claim that the law doesn't apply here.
 
superrific said:
LOL. The criminal case is not going to be overturned on appeal. They are going to drop it because Trump has been elected president and thus there is no criminal remedy that can be exercised against him.

Exactly how was that lawfare, though? The jury verdict was both unanimous and quick. Trump does not lack for money. He could have hired the best legal team in the country (except that nobody wants to represent him because they won't get paid); he chose something less than the best team but he still had multiple lawyers on his defense team. They were allowed to present a full defense. They made many objections to admission of evidence and they even won some of those objections.

And the jury convicted him. Textbook NOT LAWFARE.

And GA case going away because they remove Fani is literally getting off on a technicality. The fact of the matter is that he's on tape asking Raffensberger to cheat for him. That's a crime, end of story. Just because the GOP has mucked up the prosecutorial gears, along with an unforced error from the DA, doesn't mean Trump is innocent in any way. You still voted for a repeat and unremorseful felon.
Click to expand...
Gonna drop the New York case? Link?
 
UNCatTech said:
I'm sure its like most bills and there were other things attached that didn't make since.

I'm sure that everyone here would be ok with an immigrant convicted of a sexual crime being deported.

I'd personally be ok if citizens convicted of certain sexual crimes being deported.

I say certain because in some states two consenting adult males have sex is against the law.

Nothing is perfect, not even laws. It should not be against the law for two consenting adults to have willful consensual sex.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to see violent illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes deported UNLESS their native country has a documented history of incarcerating such people found guilty in the USA.

I’d rather see violent criminals serve their entire sentence in an American prison and then be deported.
 
Calheel said:
Gonna drop the New York case? Link?
Click to expand...
I'm not really following it. I thought that was the gravamen of the judge granting the prosecution more time to "assess" the options. Like Jack Smith asked for a stay. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
 
Zoo_View said:
I don’t want to see violent illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes deported UNLESS their native country has a documented history of incarcerating such people found guilty in the USA.

I’d rather see violent criminals serve their entire sentence in an American prison and then be deported.
Click to expand...
Yes, as long as they are appropriately incarcerated for their crimes.

And since they are not a privileged white Stanford Swimmer, they will probably get more than a few months.

Maybe we should just ensure that punishment fits the crime, period. :unsure:
 
superrific said:
I'm not really following it. I thought that was the gravamen of the judge granting the prosecution more time to "assess" the options. Like Jack Smith asked for a stay. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they will drop the case. It was always 50/50 whether he would get confinement anyway. It likely will be a stayed sentence pending appeal. After that, they may treat it like an insane person and just wait till his term is up to make him serve the punishment - be it community service or at home confinement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top