Could Trump ever be convicted in a Court of Law?

[BS Filter]

Republicans in Congress have already shown a willingness to ignore Trumps transgressions no matter how egregious

Is it possible to form a Jury without at least one member who is willing to accept whatever lie Trump is telling?

You can't convict someone just because you hate them for wrecking your plans. That wouldn't be democracy. Phoney idiot.

 

[SavannahMann]

Republicans in Congress have already shown a willingness to ignore Trumps transgressions no matter how egregious

Is it possible to form a Jury without at least one member who is willing to accept whatever lie Trump is telling?

No. I’ve said before. The only result would be a hung jury. There will be at least one who would never convict. There will also be one who would never vote not guilty. A hung jury is the only possible outcome.

 

[forkup]

You can't convict someone just because you hate them for wrecking your plans. That wouldn't be democracy. Phoney idiot.

You are right. Actual charges have to be filed. That all have different elements. That will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The question is. If this happens will it be possible to get a jury that will simply look at the facts presented to them?

 

[BS Filter]

You are right. Actual charges have to be filed. That all have different elements. That will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The question is. If this happens will it be possible to get a jury that will simply look at the facts presented to them?

Sure. Unless Judge Ito is presiding.

 

[Esdraelon]

Just answered that, yes.

They'd be "impartial" unless they voted to acquit. Nah... IF he is tried in DC, he WILL BE CONVICTED. The thing is, his supporters already understand that he wouldn't get a fair trial so he'd not likely lose any serious amount of support and no conviction for mishandling documents that he by law had every right to declassify, would ever disqualify him from running for office.
You folks need to at least be honest with yourselves and admit that is the purpose for all of this.

 

[candycorn]

Republicans in Congress have already shown a willingness to ignore Trumps transgressions no matter how egregious

Is it possible to form a Jury without at least one member who is willing to accept whatever lie Trump is telling?

sure.

The moment he answers questions under oath, he's toast. He is physically unable to tell the truth.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[BS Filter]

sure.

The moment he answers questions under oath, he's toast. He is physically unable to tell the truth.

He didn't do anything wrong. Why can't you creatures just admit you're harassing him simply because you hate his fucking guts.

 

[BS Filter]

sure.

The moment he answers questions under oath, he's toast. He is physically unable to tell the truth.

Yet, you excuse the vegetable in the White House who lies every damn time he opens his mouth. This is why normal people laugh at you twits and why good decent people are leaving your party like a burning building.

 

[MagicMike]

Uh....yes he h

No he hasn't. You're guilty of being a liar and a dumbass.

You prog morons keep repeating the same lies over and over and over.

Uh, yes he has.
So let me ask you a question..logically speaking of course.

Given the fact that Trump in this audio recording is not only admitting, but BRAGGING about the fact that he considers sexual assault of women an ok MO.....

Is it really TOO much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that when various women come forward and accuse him of the very crime he is heard here bragging about, that he is most likely GUILTY of that crime?

Think about it.

Use the same standard you would apply to ANYONE ELSE in the same circumstance.

 

[BS Filter]

Uh....yes he h

Uh, yes he has.
So let me ask you a question..logically speaking of course.

Given the fact that Trump in this audio recording is not only admitting, but BRAGGING about the fact that he considers sexual assault of women an ok MO.....

Is it really TOO much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that when various women come forward and accuse him of the very crime he is heard here bragging about, that he is most likely GUILTY of that crime?

Think about it.

Use the same standard you would apply to ANYONE ELSE in the same circumstance.

Have you ever grabbed some pussy?

 

[candycorn]

He didn't do anything wrong. Why can't you creatures just admit you're harassing him simply because you hate his fucking guts.

Should he have top secret materials once he leaves office?

 

[MagicMike]

Only

Have you ever grabbed some pussy?

Only with permission.

 

[MagicMike]

Yet, you excuse the vegetable in the White House who lies every damn time he opens his mouth. This is why normal people laugh at you twits and why good decent people are leaving your party like a burning building.

Whataboutism huh?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Just answered that, yes.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

If trump was 1/2 as bad all the shills here say he is, he'd been executed 3 times already.

 

[rightwinger]

sure.

The moment he answers questions under oath, he's toast. He is physically unable to tell the truth.

Would jurors who accept everything Trump says as the truth regardless of the evidence to the contrary be able to convict Trump of perjury?

 

[Lastamender]

Would jurors who accept everything Trump says as the truth regardless of the evidence to the contrary be able to convict Trump of perjury?

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[Leo123]

What is the purpose of this thread?

To stir up shit I guess, must be a slow day for somone.

 

[candycorn]

Would jurors who accept everything Trump says as the truth regardless of the evidence to the contrary be able to convict Trump of perjury?

Yes.

I'd be more worried about the blob getting a fair trial since he is his own worst enemy and is so universally hated.