What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Douchebag K said:
dude you're the one who's got his panties in a knot halfway up his clacker. I know sweet FA about the supreme court stuff so i haven't commented but yeah for sure that's a very uncomfortable conflict of interest if Trump expects them to reverse a decision for him when he's appointed some of them.

You are so irrational and tbh pretty hysterical when it comes to Trump which is fine, however i do object to you trying to label me this or that or tell me what i actually think when i point out something that is a curiosity or that i think is wrong. Like Rubashov said i think Trump should have been incarcerated for the horrific Jan 6 events waaaayy before this. And the classified documents again is a very very serious offence. This other stuff pffftttt is petty compared to the seriousness of that. So the judge in that case was appointed by Trump .. ??? so what ?? How do you think that's an issue compared to a judge who's specifically donated to and is ideologically on record as supporting the accused criminal's political opponent ? That you can't even say that is a serious conflict of interest shows that you have totally lost all ability for reasoned thinking when it comes to the orange turkey.

If you can't debate things rationally without resorting to personal insults and put downs i'm disappointed and surprised. I would've thought you're better than that. I won't reply to anything else in these political threads to you, i hope the next 6-12 months in the US isn't as unstable and awful as i fear it might be. I'll see you in the actual Jazz threads
Click to expand...
I think the biggest difference here is that the judge that trump appointed who is presiding over the classified documents case is literally deciding his guilt or innocence currently. She is not going to allow trump to go to trial. She isn't going to let a jury see any evidence. She won't let witnesses be called. She won't let evidence be presented. She has decided that trump will remain innocent of any and all charges by not allowing trump to go to trial.



The judge presiding over the falsified hush money payments presided over the case. The lawyers litigated the case. Witnesses were called. Evidence was provided. The jury decided trumps guilt.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Douchebag K said:
- this is a pretty comical presentation stylistically. George Costanza doesn't exactly provide much to the arguement. The attempt to define "influence the election" seems bizarre in the way that the linking from one type of crime to another undefined crime was made, and it is the first time this exact mechanism has been attempted. Anyway i'll stick to our bet when it gets to whatever appeal process is finalized ??

I still reckon he'll get a jail sentence, which would be fabulous entertainment
Click to expand...
This mechanism has existed for a long long time and yet no other misdemeanor was ever elevated to a felony if the misdemeanor was committed with the intent to commit other crimes? I don't believe that for a second.

For people reading along, the Trump fraud was elevated to a felony because not only was it fraud, but the fraud was was done in order to facilitate other crimes. This is NOT uncommon. They proved that the fraud was done in order to facilitate other crimes and that it was all done intentionally.

If I steal a candy bar that is a crime but a fairly minor misdemeanor. If I walk out of the store with my stolen candy bar while making a finger gun in my jacket pocket pointed towards the cashier I have now committed armed robbery. See how smaller crimes can be elevated? It is not something they invented to get Trump.
 
Sardines said:
This mechanism has existed for a long long time and yet no other misdemeanor was ever elevated to a felony if the misdemeanor was committed with the intent to commit other crimes? I don't believe that for a second.

For people reading along, the Trump fraud was elevated to a felony because not only was it fraud, but the fraud was was done in order to facilitate other crimes. This is NOT uncommon. They proved that the fraud was done in order to facilitate other crimes and that it was all done intentionally.

If I steal a candy bar that is a crime but a fairly minor misdemeanor. If I walk out of the store with my stolen candy bar while making a finger gun in my jacket pocket pointed towards the cashier I have now committed armed robbery. See how smaller crimes can be elevated? It is not something they invented to get Trump.
Click to expand...
All this defending for what? Trump? All of this spin for a spoiled, narcissistic, effeminate, racist man who couldn’t give a **** about his supporters? No one here defending him has benefited in any way from his presidency. Yet, they’ll defend him like no other politician or religious figure in their lifetimes.

You don’t see anyone dressing up as Hunter Biden. No one is calling the charges against Senator Menendez to be politically motivated. No one defending Trump would be defending Biden, Clinton, or Obama. Yet, they’ll spin, lie, and defend a serial liar, criminal, and sewage bag because… of what? What they perceive he represents? Because of the white grievance he feeds them?


View: https://x.com/theatlantic/status/1798320152557031851?s=46
 
The Thriller said:
All this defending for what? Trump? All of this spin for a spoiled, narcissistic, effeminate, racist man who couldn’t give a **** about his supporters? No one here defending him has benefited in any way from his presidency. Yet, they’ll defend him like no other politician or religious figure in their lifetimes.

You don’t see anyone dressing up as Hunter Biden. No one is calling the charges against Senator Menendez to be politically motivated. No one defending Trump would be defending Biden, Clinton, or Obama. Yet, they’ll spin, lie, and defend a serial liar, criminal, and sewage bag because… of what? What they perceive he represents? Because of the white grievance he feeds them?


View: https://x.com/theatlantic/status/1798320152557031851?s=46
Click to expand...

But aren't you afraid that if Trump is held accountable for his crimes then any politician could be held accountable for their crimes?

I say with an entirely straight face.
 
Sardines said:
But aren't you afraid that if Trump is held accountable for his crimes then any politician could be held accountable for their crimes?

I say with an entirely straight face.
Click to expand...

lol you don't think every single sitting member of congress or the senate would have something you could prosecute if you dug deep enough for long enough ??

I mean insider trading there is a joke. Half your politicians should be in jail for insider trading if everything was investigated and prosecuted no ??
 
Douchebag K said:
lol you don't think every single sitting member of congress or the senate would have something you could prosecute if you dug deep enough for long enough ??

I mean insider trading there is a joke. Half your politicians should be in jail for insider trading if everything was investigated and prosecuted no ??
Click to expand...
If that's true, prosecute them all! ALL. OF. THEM.
 
Rubashov said:
Trump should be in prison for what happened on January 6, nearly 4 years later he's not seen the inside of a court room or been charged for his two bit insurrection. He should have been charged with treason and hung at the end of a rope.
Click to expand...
speaking of who should be in prison i was talking to a bloke who used to be a reporter for the Age last week and did a lot of the legwork in the investigation into the robodebt scheme. How the effing hell there haven't been criminal charges resulting from that abominable scheme beggars belief
 
Douchebag K said:
"if that's true" dude they've ALL got their snouts in the trough Both sides
Click to expand...
There needs to be specific evidence of a specific crime in order to prosecute. Most of them are pros and such evidence doesn't exist.

"If that's true" can be interpreted, "if you can prove that in court."
 
Sardines said:
There needs to be specific evidence of a specific crime in order to prosecute. Most of them are pros and such evidence doesn't exist.

"If that's true" can be interpreted, "if you can prove that in court."
Click to expand...

well it can but i think it's more closely related to "if the will is there to go down that path" in that particular case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top