Chutkan's tour de force ruling smashes the claims of unjust prosecution.

[kyzr]

Does it bother you how trump constantly tries to get off on technicalities, having no way to refute his guilt?

Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
What guilt?
The FBI already said Trump did NOT incite the riot, and Nancy admitted she is responsible, so what are you talking about?

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report

The FBI has not found evidence of an "organized plot" to overturn the election, and it hasn't found any evidence that Trump organized the violence.

www.businessinsider.com

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
What guilt?
The FBI already said Trump did NOT incite the riot, and Nancy admitted she is responsible, so what are you talking about?

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report

The FBI has not found evidence of an "organized plot" to overturn the election, and it hasn't found any evidence that Trump organized the violence.

www.businessinsider.com

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report​

You haven't read a single word of the indictment, have you? Inciting the riot is the least of Trump's worries.

 

[kyzr]

What you are saying is laughable and irrelevant. It would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on a jury deciding if Trump did what he is accused of doing. And unless Trump gets elected and corruptly makes his cases go away, these cases are not going anywhere. The DOJ will bring them with a new prosecutor, if needed.

Assuming a DC jury would convict Trump of anything, I don't disagree with your assessment.
However, after the Law is considered, and the DC "Lawfare" is tossed out, Trump will be acquitted.

Fox News Legal Analyst Says Supreme Court’s Jan. 6 Decision ‘Rips The Wings Off’ Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump

Jonathan Turley reacted to the latest decision by the Supreme Court on January 6th by claiming it "rips the wings off" Jack Smith's cases against Donald Trump.

www.mediaite.com

Fox News Legal Analyst Says Supreme Court’s Jan. 6 Decision ‘Rips The Wings Off’ Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Assuming a DC jury would convict Trump of anything, I don't disagree with your assessment.

That doesn't matter. What you hope for has no bearing.

The jury will be deciding if Trump did that of which he is accused based on the evidence.

And you should read the indictment before commenting again.

 

[kyzr]

You haven't read a single word of the indictment, have you? Inciting the riot is the least of Trump's worries.

The indictment written by Jack Smith is ass wipe. You were saying?

 

[Dragonlady]

What you are saying is laughable and irrelevant. It would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on a jury deciding if Trump did what he is accused of doing.

And unless Trump gets elected and corruptly makes his cases go away, these cases are not going anywhere. The DOJ will bring them with a new prosecutor, if needed.

Yes, they most definitely will be brought by a new prosecutor if the SC tosses these charges.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr0257-198

In elegantly granular detail Judge Chutkan eviscerates trump's attempt to paint his prosecution in the Jan. 6 case as being the result of a politicized DoJ. It's worth reading every word.

Because it so thoroughly exposes trump's assertion as being wholly without substance her ruling will be dismissed by The Following in the strongest terms. How can it not be since acknowledging her sound legal reasoning shatters one of the main tenets of trump's complaints. That he is being prosecuted unfairly. He isn't.

Enough is enough. Hammer the orange bag O' shit.

 

[kyzr]

That doesn't matter. What you hope for has no bearing.
The jury will be deciding if Trump did that of which he is accused based on the evidence.
And you should read the indictment before commenting again.

I'm not interested in what the indictment written by Jack Smith says.
What matters is what happens after the appeal process is over. That is the "final verdict".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The indictment written by Jack Smith is ass wipe.

*that you haven't read. Clearly.

You shouldn't even be commenting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not interested in what the indictment written by Jack Smith says.

Then you are too ignorant to be commenting on it.

Moving on...

 

[Billiejeens]

It would be nice if any of you left wing lunatics actually knew what an indictment is.

 

[kyzr]

*that you haven't read. Clearly.
You shouldn't even be commenting.

What part of "the Jack Smith indictment is illegitimate" don't you understand?

 

[whitehall]

They call it a "tour de force" when a Jamaican babe appointed to the Bench by Hussein Obama goes after Trump for frivolous junk. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" ...Stalin's secret police chief Josef Biera.

 

[berg80]

Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
What guilt?
The FBI already said Trump did NOT incite the riot, and Nancy admitted she is responsible, so what are you talking about?

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report

The FBI has not found evidence of an "organized plot" to overturn the election, and it hasn't found any evidence that Trump organized the violence.

www.businessinsider.com

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report​

I'm talking about the series of frivolous motions to dismiss the charges against him in the Jan. 6 case and other cases based on bizarre interpretations of the law. This, as a substitute for presenting evidence of his innocence. For example, he can't deny his involvement in the plot to steal the election. There is too much evidence proving he was at the heart of it. So instead he seeks immunity, or claims Smith was not appointed appropriately, or falsely accuses the DoJ of bias, or unfair prosecution, or any of a dozen baseless claims.

 

[berg80]

and Nancy admitted she is responsible

C'mon man, that's a lie. Geesh.

 

[scruffy]

You haven't read a single word of the indictment, have you? Inciting the riot is the least of Trump's worries.

Big deal.

It'll all be dismissed or overturned.

Trump will prevail.

It's plainly obvious the leftards are just trying to make life difficult for the opposition candidate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What part of "the Jack Smith indictment is illegitimate" don't you understand?

I understand it emanates from the mouth of someone who knows less than nothing about the indictment and so could not argue that if their life depended on it.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It'll all be dismissed or overturned.

And there's another one.

 

[berg80]

They call it a "tour de force" when a Jamaican babe appointed to the Bench by Hussein Obama goes after Trump for frivolous junk. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" ...Stalin's secret police chief Josef Biera.

The text of the ruling shows how effortless it is to obliterate trump's deceitful narrative when it comes up against rigorous legal analysis. Her ruling is not a commentary on Don's guilt or innocence but rather a dismantling of the ridiculous claims his prosecution is politically motivated. An assertion, as Chutkan points out, for which there is no evidence.

IOW, you can't get away with making baseless claims in a court of law. Either you have evidence or you don't. Which is why Don's voter fraud claims were dismissed.

 

[scruffy]

And there's another one.

Yep. There's another one. You're gonna get beat to shit in November.